1986 (12) TMI 71

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed that at the time of her marriage (solemnised on 16th Jan., 1979) she got cash gifts amounting to Rs. 20,000 and other gifts representing articles of jewellery, coins, silverwares etc. to the extent of Rs. 46,276. However, the ITO took the view that there was no evidence to prove the said gifts. Accordingly, he made an addition of Rs. 63,276 (Rs.43,276 + Rs. 20,000) as unexplained investment. In appeal, the learned AAC accepted the cash gifts. However, he held that the gifts of various items of silver utensils valued at Rs. 23,732 was not established. Therefore, an addition of Rs. 26,000 is round figures was upheld. Thereafter, with reference to the said addition, the ITO initiated penalty ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on the factors: (1) that the return was filed with detailed foot notes, (2) that as the assessee did not make any investment the provisions of s. 69 were not applicable, (3) that there was no column in the income-tax return requiring the declaration of any deemed income and (4) that the addition had been made and sustained on estimate basis. 5. Reliance was also placed by him on the following decisions: 1. Smt. Kamlawati Raizada vs. CED (1976) 105 ITR 703 (All) 2. Tara Devi Goenka vs. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 14 (Cal) 3. CIT vs. Jewels Paradise (1975) 101 ITR 265 (Kar) 4. Durga Sharan Udho Prasad vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 270 (Pat) 5. CIT vs. Lal Babu (1980) 15 CTR (Pat) 173: (1980) 122 ITR 1006 (Pat) 6. CIT vs. Such....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....elevant, they cannot be treated as conclusive for the pruposes of imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(c). The assessment year involved is 1979-80. Since the finding of the IT authorities was that the assessee had offered an explanation which she was not able to substantiate we have to see whether, in terms of the provisio appended to Expln. I, the explanation of the assessee was bona fide and all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of her total income had been disclosed by her. A perusal of the assessment order dt. 27th March, 1982 shows that the assessee had filed detailed explanation accompanying the return to the effect that she had received various gifts at the time of her marriage. The assessee had married ....