9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (8) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... included export sales in two invoices to the extent of Rs. 1,42,800 on July 25, 1962, and the exports were made actually by one J.K.K. Natarajan Chettiar and that the assessee was only a name lender. After deducting the export sales, he showed the actual sales during the year ended April 12, 1963, as Rs. 1,09,633 and filed a revised return on that basis on September 29, 1965, admitting a total income of Rs. 9,683. Natarajan Chettiar gave statement admitting that he would have obliged the assessee with cash and goods for the export of cloth to the extent of Rs. 1,42,800 and including all other expenses amounting to Rs. 1,50,000. The ITO found that the peak credit as per the account amounted to a sum of Rs. 2,15,000. The assessee's explanatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has already accepted the explanation with regard to Rs. 1,50,000 and as the income from the service rendered by the assessee had already been considered under " business ", it was but fair that the remaining sum of Rs. 65,000 of the gross peak was also eliminated. In that view, he ordered the deletion of Rs. 59,205. Against this decision of the AAC, the ITO preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The IAC had also initiated proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act on the ground that the assessee originally submitted a return showing a loss of Rs. 6,555, but later filed a revised return showing an income of Rs. 9,445 during the course of the assessment proceedings and that the income had been concealed. In that view, he levied a penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he provisions of section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (iii) Whether the finding of the Appellate Tribunal is a reasonable view to take on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ?" T.C. No. 791 of 1976: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in reducing the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1963-64, to Rs. 1,000? " The learned counsel for the revenue contended that there was only an explanation of the assessee relating to Rs. 59,205 and there was no material in support of that explanation and, as such, the Tribunal was in error in deleting the same. We are unable to agree with this contention. The explanation of the assessee was that there wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to have not satisfactorily explained the credits or discharged the onus of proof under s. 68 of the I.T. Act. We are also of the view that on the statement of the assessee, in fact, s. 68 of the Act could not be invoked at all, because no amount has come to the possession of the assessee, which was used for the purpose of the business, so that the entry relating to the credit as also the entry relating to sales were bogus and, therefore, s. 68 of the Act could not be invoked. Further, even assuming that any other view is possible, since the AAC and the Tribunal had taken one view which cannot be stated to be unreasonable, in the circumstances, we, cannot say that the deletion of the sum of Rs. 59,205 was contrary to law. We, accordingly, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
