9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (7) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rivate Ltd. was assessed to income-tax. In the course of the assessment proceedings the Income-tax Officer found a deposit of Rs. 4,000 in the account of one S. L. Rathor, and 4 hundi loans amounting to Rs. 1,00,500. The assessee was asked to explain the nature and source of the same. Explanations were offered but were not accepted by the Income-tax Officer who added back the same as the assessee' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was made under section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and, as such, penalty could not be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was also urged that simply because some additions were confirmed in the assessment proceedings, no penalty could be levied. The fact of additions would not show that the assessee had concealed particulars of his income or had delibera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en made under section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on 13th March, 1964, no penalty could be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, merely because some addition was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the quantum appeal, it could be said that no onus lay on the department to prove that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Khoday Eswarsa and Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC). The Tribunal has found that it is not sufficient that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has upheld part of the additions to come to the conclusion that the assessee has concealed his income or has furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. This is a finding of fact. Apart from that, the Supreme Court has laid down ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
