9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firm which has been assessed on total income of Rs. 54,930 as against the income returned of Rs. 43,990. The difference between the income assessed and returned was mainly due to the addition of Rs. 10,000 as income from undisclosed sources which represented cash credits totalling Rs. 10,000 in the name of one Sri Kanhiya Lal. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee did not submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ads as follows: "In regard to the above the assessee had Hather dealings with Sri Kanhiya Lal Bhotpar Jaunpur. Since the amounts have been paid off, the said party is now unscrupulously avoiding confirmation. Accordingly this assessee, for want of proper evidence, is herewith surrendering the amount to avoid penalty as suggested." The ITO accordingly imposed penalty of Rs. 5,360 under s. 271 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e's ld. counsel deals with the law relating to penalty as it stood on 1st April, 1964 when Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) was brought into the statute. The law since then has substantially changed by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 w.e.f. 1st April, 1976 by virtue of which the original Explanation inserted by Finance Act, 1964 was substituted by Explanation. The said Explanation reads as unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 271(1)(c). The ITO mentioned in his order that the assessee failed to substantiate the explanation offered in regard to the cash credits detected by the ITO in the account of Sri Kanhiya Lal whose name appeared in the Balance sheet submitted by the assessee. It was for the assessee to bring its case within the exception provided in the proviso to Expln. 1 of s. 271(1)(c). In order to bring its cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision in Gumani Ram Siri Ram is not, therefore, applicable to the facts of the present case when we have to consider the amended provisions of the law as on 1st April, 1976. We would accordingly hold that in the circumstances of the case, a the penalty has been rightly levied in terms of s. 271(1)(c) read with the Expln. 1 thereof. Since minimum penalty has been imposed, there is no scope for re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
