1981 (4) TMI 139

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....see failed to prove the genuineness. The ITO therefore, treated the impugned credit of Rs. 15,000 as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. Addition was accordingly made in the assessment order. The ITO also initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961 at the time of the assessment. The assessee submitted reply in response to the show-cause notice. The ITO not being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000. On appeal, the AAC confirmed the said penalty. 2. Aggrieved, the assessee has come up in appeal to the Tribunal. Admitted facts are that Shri Prem Rattan is a brother-in-law of the assessee, the addition in the quantum appeal was sustained eve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....O, Shri Ranka says, it could not be said that the negative burden cast on the assessee by the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) was not discharged. He argues that the assessee discharged the negative burden by having produced Shri Prem Rattan, who affirmed having advance Rs. 15,000 to the assessee. It is said that statement of Shri Prem Rattan was not accepted by the Revenue as he happened to be relation of the assessee and as account books of the father of Shri Prem Rattan who carried on proprietary business styled as Dawarkadas Goverdhandas were not produced. The argument is that because the proof which the ITO required could not be produced, no fraud or gross or wilful neglect could be attributed to the assessee. It is argued that it is not a ....