9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (4) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the manner that Rs. 10,000 was money received by his wife from her father-in-law, Rs. 8,000 had been gifted to her by her father and Rs. 7,000 was her personal domestic saving and from money-lending. The stand of the assessee was rejected in the assessment proceeding. There being a difference of more than 20 per cent. between the assessed sum and the returned income, penalty proceeding was initiated against the assessee. In the assessment proceeding, the plea that the house was the property of his wife was not accepted. The stand of the assessee in the penalty proceeding was that in earlier years between 1955-56 to 1961-62, the assessee had been assessed to an income of 38,000. They were claimed to be intangible additions which provided the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te service of notice. We have, therefore, heard Mr. B. P. Rajgarhia, standing counsel, Income-tax Department. From the facts narrated above, it will be seen that the Tribunal deleted the penalty on the basis of the decision in the case of Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC). This court in Taxation Case No. 65 of 1974, disposed of on March 12, 1985 (CIT v. Nathulal Agarwala and Sons [1985] 153 ITR 292 [FB]) has held that after the enactment of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, Anwar Ali's case is no longer the law of the land. The Tribunal did not record any finding that the explanation of the assessee in regard to undisclosed sources of income was reasonable. The law is that in terms of the Explanation to section 271( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee after 1964 when the Explanation to section 271 (1)(c) was enacted. The assessee not having discharged his onus, there was no obligation upon the Department to endeavour to disprove the case of the assessee. In our view, the Tribunal erred in law in relying on the case of Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC), for setting aside the order of penalty. The assessee produced no material nor was there anything on the record to explain the concealed income of Rs. 15,000. We have, therefore, no doubt that the Tribunal in setting aside the order of penalty on the authority of the case of Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC), erred in law. The question referred to us for our opinion must, therefore, be answered in the negative, in favour of the Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
