1980 (9) TMI 122

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... up the statement of the case. 2. The facts are that in this case, assessment for the asst. yr. 1972-73 was completed on 12th Feb., 1975. The ITO found that the following income had not been disclosed by the assessee in the first instance: (a) unexplained investment in house property Rs. 9,000 (b) Income from truck plying business Rs. 6,000 (c) Unexplained investment in Fixed Deposit Rs. 10,000 . Total Rs. 25,000 He, therefore, intimated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c). Ultimately he levied a penalty of Rs. 25,000 under s. 271(1)(c). On appeal, the assessee got a relief of Rs. 15,000 against the balance penalty of Rs. 10,000 the assessee appealed to the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal in its tur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sessment proceedings. In this behalf, we may refer to some of the observations which we were constrained to make while hearing the quantum appeal: "It has been brought- to our notice by the ld. D.R. that although the disputed FDR was purchased in the name of the assessee on 30th Dec., 1971, no mention of the same was made by his wife Smt. Tulsibai in her voluntary disclosure petition made in Sept., 1972. At that time the total amount disclosed was Rs. 21,000 which was said to represent her income for the asst. yrs. 1969-70 to 1972-73.0ut of the above amount the ITO found that Rs. 8,000 was invested in purchase of a house and Rs. 9,600 towards the purchase of a FDR in her name in Dec., 1972. Thus the lady was not in a position to effect a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tive of the assessee was that the lady omitted to mention this the FDR for Rs. 9,600 which the lady got prepared in her own name was dt. 29th Dec., 1972 and since the assessee is having a financial year as his accounting period, this lady could have earned something between 1st April, 1972 to 29th Dec., 1972 and that amount could have been utilised towards the purchase of her own draft. What we mean to say is that although it is not likely, it is still possible that this money may have actually belonged to the lady because by 30th Dec., 1971 she had about Rs. 20,000 with her out of which she had invested only Rs. 8,000 for the house and the balance could be utilised for the purchase of this draft. It is correct that thereafter it would be d....