9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (7) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecember 21, 1960, the assessee had shown professional income of Rs. 80,575 as her earning from the films, viz., Hospital, Bombai-ka-Babu and Saptapadi. Daring the assessment proceedings the assessee agreed with the ITO that there was some mistake in the professional income shown by her. Finally, the assessee agreed that in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year under reference she received Rs. 95,500 in respect of her role in the different films. The ITO, however, considering the investments made by the assessee in the purchase of house property, jewellery, cadillac car., etc., estimated the assessee's professional income at Rs. 3 lakhs and the net professional income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 2 lakhs. Simulta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee's professional income at Rs. 95,500. Moreover, the Tribunal allowed expenses of Rs. 15,000 as against Rs. 12,000 allowed by the AAC. Again, the Tribunal estimated the assessee's income from other sources at Rs. 46,000 in place of Rs. 70,000 estimated by the AAC. In its order dated April 12, 1971, against the penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Tribunal held that with reference to the professional income as finally assessed there was no concealment. For reasons stated in the order under reference and relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC), the Tribunal held that the provisions of s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act were not attracted even in respect of Rs. 46,000 as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ources. According to the Tribunal, the receipts from A.D. Films of Rs. 30,101 was considered to be not proved. There was no evidence on the part of the department to show that the assessee had actually received such an amount as alleged by the department. The loan from Saroda Finance of Rs. 30,000, according to the Tribunal, is not income and the receipt of Rs. 50,000 from Charu Chitra was held by the Tribunal to be not taxable. It, is found by the Tribunal that there was an excess of expenditure over the receipts. According to the Tribunal, there was no evidence which can be taken to have established that such expenditure was made out of any unaccounted receipts which was established to be an income of revenue nature. It is also found by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a good evidence. Before penalty can be imposed the entirety of circumstances must reasonably point to the conclusion that the disputed amount represented income and that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. " Thus, it is the specific finding of the Tribunal that it has not been established for the purpose of penalty that the amount in question, viz., the sum of Rs. 46,000 represented or emanated out of the receipts which were income of a revenue nature. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the provisions of s. 271 (1)(c) are not attracted. We have given our anxious consideration to the facts found by the Tribunal. Having regard to the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
