9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (11) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firming the penalty of Rs. 5,000 imposed by the ITO under s. 271(1) (c) of the IT Act for the asst. yr. 1965-66nd the penalty of Rs. 147 imposed under the aforesaid provisions for the asst. yr. 1966-67. 3. The relevant facts are that for the asst. yr. 1965-66, the ITO made an addition of Rs. 13,750 in computing the total income of the assessee on the ground that the assessee had failed to satis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted this explanation on the ground that if the assessee had really saved any part of his travelling and daily allowances, he should have included the amounts so saved in his return of income for the relevant year in which he had received the said allowances. He, therefore, held that the assessee had failed to substantiate his explanation regarding the source of Investments in the house property an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere in it has been held that the fiction contained in s. 69 of the IT Act, deeming unexplained investment to be the income of the assessee, had to be taken into account in penalty proceedings also. The ld. Deptl. Rep. contended that having regard to the principles laid down by the Calcutta High Court in the above mentioned case, the ITO and the AAC were justified in imposing penalty under s. 271 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court have held that the department must establish that the receipt of the amount in dispute constituted income of the assessee. According to the Supreme Court, if there is no evidence on the report except the explanation given by the assessee, which explanation has been found to be false, it does not follow that the receipt constituted his taxable income. The same principle has been reiterated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
