1980 (2) TMI 120

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r s. 271(1)(c). The penalty is levied with reference to the addition of Rs. 1,05,045 made as assessee's undisclosed income. The IAC has held that the cash pronotes and investments found in the names of the assessee's relatives in fact belonged to the assessee and he has not disclosed the source of the same. The assessee has concealed the particulars of income and is therefore liable for penalty. A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....red the rival submissions. It is true that we have upheld the addition made by the ITO in the assessment. But that does not automatically lead to the conclusion that penalty is leviable. This is a case where the assessee's explanation has been rejected. The books of account of the assessee have not been accepted. It is well settled that in the penalty proceedings, it is for the Department to prove....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1)(c) does not absolve the Department from establishing the necessary facts for levying penalty under the provisions of s. 271(1)(c). The above ratio squarely covers the instant case. In the instant case except the falsity of explanation relating to the addition of income in the assessment proceedings the Department has not brought any material on record in the penalty proceedings to prove that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Burugupalli China Krishnamurthy & Others and the ration of the Supreme Court in the case of Anwar Ali (76 ITR 696) and that of CIT vs. Khoday Eswarasa & Sons (83 ITR 369) squarely apply to the facts of the instant case. Applying the ratio laid down in the above cases we hold that the Department has not discharged the onus of proving that the....