9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (1) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the I.T. Act, 1961 (" the Act "), for an order directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case to this court and to refer certain questions of law formulated by the revenue arising out of the order dated March 24, 1975, of the Tribunal. At the conclusion of the hearing on January 4, 1980, we announced our decision. We dismissed the applications. Now, we give our reasons. The Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income to the extent of Rs. 14 lakhs for the assessment year 1954-55. The Tribunal by order dated March 24, 1975, cancelled the penalty. They took the view that the charge of concealment of income had remained unproved. The assessee gave an explanation that at the relevant time he was in possession of three A class preference shares of Bennett Coleman and Company Ltd., that these shares of the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court laid down the principle that 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. The court said (p. 701): "If there is no evidence on the record except the exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e explanation given by the assessee in the assessment proceedings. We do not agree. It appears to us to be a clear case of falsity of explanation. It is not a case where there is a definite finding, as was the case in Manasvi [1972] 86 ITR 557 (SC) that a device had been deliberately adopted by the assessee for the purpose of concealing his income. In our opinion, Anwar Ali's case [1970] 76 ITR 69 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
