9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (7) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therein. The assessee is a transport company. For paying passenger tax, the assessee-company used to purchase stamps in bulk. For the assessment years 1966-67 and 1968-69, the assessee-company disclosed its receipts as under : Rs. 1966-67 11,88,665 1968-69 13,33,003 The ITO found that the assessee-company did not account for all the passenger tax stamps purchased by it from the var ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ks had purchased more stamps than the quantity which was actually required by the assessee-company and they had sold the excess stamps to the other bus owners. The ITO rejected this explanation and made the following additions to, the receipts declared by the assessee-company keeping in view the ratio of passenger tax to the passenger fare : Rs. 1966-67 90,000 1968-69 52,000 The ITO al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome for the year 1966-67 and a penalty of Rs. 50,000 with regard to the concealment of income for the year 1968-69. The appeals filed by the assessee-company before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal were allowed and the penalties were waived. The Commissioner of Income-tax filed an application before the Tribunal for the statement of the case to this court but these applications were dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en rejected. But the additional evidence to be collected should be direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. We are purposely refraining from expressing any opinion on this point. The learned counsel for the revenue has submitted that even under pure criminal law the burden of proving that the case falls within an exception lies on an accused person as laid down in s. 105 of the Evidence Act and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
