9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (7) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts totalling Rs. 9,400 existed in the assessee's account books. These were in the accounts of Gyan Prakash, Sushil Kumar and Ahmad Khan. The officer required the assessee to prove the genuineness of these deposits and also to furnish the addresses of these persons. The assessee did not respond. He did not produce any evidence or furnish the required addresses. The ITO concluded that these deposits were not genuine and he added them as income from undisclosed sources. The assessment was passed on a total income of Rs. 15,000 under s. 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee filed appeals, but failed before the AAC as well as the Tribunal. The additions were sustained. In due course penalty proceedings were initiated. The assessee failed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings for the year 1947-48 under s. 28(1)(c) of the Act of 1922, which was in pari materia with s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 as it stood prior to its amendment in 1964, with effect from 1st April, 1964. These provisions provided for levy of penalty in cases where the assessee has concealed particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Construing them the Supreme Court held that the penalty proceedings being penal in character the burden was on the department to establish that the disputed amount was income of the assessee. It was also ruled that the finding on the quantum side that the explanation was false, though relevant, was not conclusive in penalty proceedings. By the amendment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the revenue has to prove the charge of concealment or of furnishing inaccurate particulars. This was incorrect. Further, Anwar Ali's case [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC) is inapplicable, because when that case was decided there was no Explanation in the statute. The Tribunal ought to have applied its mind to the materials on the record and should have recorded a finding whether the assessee had been able to establish that the failure to return the correct income was not due to fraud or gross or wilful neglect on his part. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. As no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee, there will be no order as to costs. - - TaxTMI - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
