9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (5) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed an income of Rs. 17,648 for the assessment year 1964-65 and an income of Rs. 25,663 for the assessment year 1965-66. The Income-tax Officer rejected the account books of the assessee on the ground that it was not maintaining the daily stock books. He applied a gross profit rate of 15 per cent. and assessed an income of Rs. 53,425. As the income returned by the assessee was less than 80 per cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has committed fraud or gross or wilful neglect in not returning the correct income. The burden of dislodging this presumption was on the assessee. It was open to the assessee to prove that the concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars was not due to fraud or gross or wilful neglect on his part. The Tribunal further observed that when evidence has been led the question of onus loses impor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271(l)(c)/274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? " The Explanation to section 271(1)(c) raises a presumption that the assessee had concealed his income or furnished inaccurate particulars ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay upon him by establishing the facts mentioned above from which it is clear that it was not a case of either fraud or of commission of any gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee. The only neglect of which the assessee could be held guilty is that he was not maintaining day to day stock register. But that was not relevant to the question whether the assessee had furnished inaccurate p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
