9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (7) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idence was produced. Later on, the assessee surrendered the said amount. So the said amount was added in the total amount of the assessee. The ITO at the time of completing the assessment initiated the penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. In penalty proceedings, on behalf of the assessee, no explanation was given. So, the ld. ITO was of the view that there was concealment of income on the part of the assessee and consequently he imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,500. In appeal, before the AAC, it was contended that the finding of the ITO was not correct. It was contended that for avoiding complications, a sum of Rs. 2,500 was surrendered. It was also contended that the creditor was repaid Rs. 1,000 on Sawan Sudi 15, and the rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, the returned income is less than 80 per cent of the finally assessed income and as such the explanation to s. 271(1)(c) is clearly attracted. Under the circumstances, it was for the assessee to show that there was no fraud or gross or wilful neglect in not disclosing the returned income. According to the ld. Departmental Representative the assessee failed to discharge the initial onus which lay upon it. 6. We have heard the parties and perused the evidence on record. From the facts it is clear that in the present case, the returned income is less than 80 per cent of the finally assessed income. So, the explanation to s. 271(1)(c) is clearly attracted. 7. The assessee gave detailed explanation before the AAC stating that the loan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obabilities, it is clear that there was no fraud or gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee in not returning the assessed income. The assessee surrendered the amount on account of the circumstances discussed above. In penalty proceedings, the assessee never admitted that the sum of Rs. 2,500 was its income. Thus, in our opinion, the initial burden lay upon the assessee, had been duly discharged. After rejecting the explanation of the assessee, on behalf of the Revenue, no positive material was brought on record to show that the assessee consciously failed to disclose the sum of Rs. 2,500 in the return. Thus in our opinion, in the present case, no penalty is called for. Accordingly, the impugned order of penalty is cancelled. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
