9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N. Mahajan , D. Awasthi , G. Krishna , R.K. Upadhyay and S. Chopra JUDGMENT 1. The question referred to this Court in this case is as follows: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in law justified in holding that no penalty under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act was leviable in the present case?" The Tribunal has decided the case by order dated 10.2.1988 according to the provision of Explanation-1 to Section 271(1) as stood after the amendment of 1986. The assessment year involved in this case is 1977-78. At that time, the Explanation-1, more particularly, clause (B) thereof stood as follows: "Explanation 1: - Where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the tot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him, then, the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purpose of clause (c) of this sub-section be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed." Sri Govind Krishna, learned counsel for the Department contended that once the explanation of the assessee was not found to be correct, it was evident that he was guilty of concealment of facts, material to computation of the total income, and the onus lie upon him to show that the explanation was bona fide. The Tribunal in holding otherwise has erred in law by relying on the explanation to Section 271(1) as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come in respect to which the said Explanation was offered was concealed income provided it is not a case where the explanation is bona fide and all the facts relating to the said matter is disclosed by the assessee. Here the assessee has shown that all the facts were disclosed by him and the explanation was not found lacking bona fide. In these circumstances, the assessee was required only to show that his explanation was bona fide and he has disclosed all the facts relevant in respect to the said material and thereafter the onus lay upon the Department to dispute the same. Learned counsel for the Revenue could not show as to what relevant material was not disclosed by the assessee which it ought to have disclosed and how and in what manner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
