9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (7) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made on 7th Feb., 1974 at Rs. 64,414. The addition were made in the income of the assessee on the grounds that the assessee itself admitted the additional income of Rs. 16,500 which was estimated by the ITO at Rs. 18,000. A raid was made on the premises of the assessee by the ST authorities on 6th March, 1971 and they seized the account books of the assessee, known as Uchanti Bahi. In the said Bahi Sales worth Rs. 10,26,223 were found having recorded. The assessee showed the income in the original return of Rs. 23,305 on the turnover of Rs. 19,04,000. For making the said turnover the assessee's books showed the Partner's Capital to the tune of Rs. 77,000. The ITO called upon the assessee to explain the Investment of the sales worth Rs. 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anti Bahi. The ITO made the addition on account of the unexplained investment made in the business having recorded in the Uchanti Bahi to the extent of Rs. 26,000 which was reduced by the AAC to Rs. 21,000. The Tribunal reduced his addition to Rs. 7,700 and thus the IAC also held the assessee guilty for the concealment of Rs. 7,700. Thus the total penalty was imposed in the sum of Rs. 25,700 (Rs. 18,000 plus Rs. 7,700). 4. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee urged that no penalty was exigible on any count. It is urged by him that even before the ST authorities, who conducted the raid on the premises of the assessee and seized Uchanti Bahi, the assessee pleaded that the Uchanti Bahi purported to the personal transactions made by one o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aced on the assessee's version in these circumstances, there is no consistency in the stand taken by the assessee. Moreover, since it is not proved that in the Uchanti Bahi, the Personal Sales transactions of Shri Tarlochan Singh were also recorded, we hold that it is only the assessee's business which was recorded in the Uchanti Bahi. It shows that the assessee consciously concealed the income from the business having recorded in the Uchanti Bahi. In the absence of any convincing explanation on the part of the assessee, it must be held that the income of Rs. 16,500 which was shown in the revised return by the assessee was consciously concealed by the assessee. In Mahavir Metal Works vs. CIT (92 ITR 513 (P H). Punjab Haryana High court cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment of Rs. 77,000 was required for the turnover of Rs. 19,04,000, the investment of Rs. 50,000 was necessary for making the Sales worth Rs. 10,26,223 or Rs. 11,00,000. The assessee was called upon to explain the investment made by the assessee on the sales having recorded in the Uchanti Bahi. The assessee gave the explanation of Rs. 30,000 which it borrowed from Shri Pratap Sigh. At the same time the assessee contended that the investment of Rs. 50,000 was not necessary for making the Sales of Rs. 11,00,000. According to the assessee, the investment of Rs. 36,000 was adequate. The AAC held that the investment of Rs. 45,000 was enough to make the sales of Rs. 11,00,000. The Tribunal, in appeal, found that the investment of Rs. 36,000 was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
