9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm carrying on business in foodgrains. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the ITO noticed certain cash credits in respect of which the assessee's explanation was that they were agriculturists who had given their goods to the assessee for sale and the amounts due to them had been credited and paid off. By a letter dt. 12th Dec., 1978 the assessee further stated that since it would take ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osition of penalty as held by the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mansa Ram Sons (1971) 106 ITR 307 (All). Secondly, it was argued that since the addition was made under s. 68 it was only a deemed income to which the provisions of s. 271(1)(c) were not attracted. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the Revenue that since the amount was surrendered only after detection by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red the amount for addition. The Expln. 1 to s. 271(1)(c) states that the amount shall be deemed to represent considered income in case the explanation is found to be false or the assessee offers an explanation which it is not able to substantiate. Since in this case, no enquiry was held, obviously the explanation was not found to be false. The assessee did not substantiate the explanation only be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
