9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (9) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (for short the " Tribunal "), to state a case and refer the questions of law arising out of its order for the opinion of this court. The opposite party-assessee is a doctor having income from salary and from private practice. He had neither maintained any books of account nor a professional diary for his professional income and such income was used to be returned on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not believed by the Income-tax Officer. The total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 26,430 as against the returned income of Rs. 8,433. Penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated against him. The assessee examined two witnesses in support of his contention that he had received consultation fees only and not injection fees. This was not accepted and ultimately ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the amount he has received which go to show that, in fact, he has received the amount and now he cannot turn round and say that he has not received the same amount and it was received by somebody else. It is further contended that the assessing officer found that the professional income that was returned was not correct. The total income was reassessed and determined by him. The reassessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arged his onus by proving that he has not received the entire amount and that he has not received the injection fees by adducing evidence which was not challenged by the Department. The Department has not produced anything more, except relying on the receipts, to show that the assessee has given a false return. The evidence adduced by the assessee has also not been rebutted. After hearing counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
