1976 (12) TMI 83

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....upon the assessee to explain the sources of funds, for the said purchase. The assessee had explained that he had taken loans as under:- 1. Padma Gopalan Rs. 20,000 2. R. Krishnan Rs. 25,000 3. Pachiammal (two accounts viz. Rs. 16,000 & Rs. 5,000, Rs. 21,000 4. Indira Devi (four A/cs. Rs.7,000, Rs. 1,000, Rs.21,000 & Rs. 7,000) Rs. 36,000 The Income-tax Officer appears to have accepted some of the above loans. In respect of the remaining items, an appeal the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner had accepted some other items of loans. The genuineness of the following loans were, however, accepted by the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner:- 1. Pachiammal Rs. 16,000 2. -do- Rs. 5,000 3. Indira ....

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 assessee from undisclosed sources. As regards the other credits also the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner observed that there was no satisfactory explanation offered by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal. He, therefore, held that penalty was exigible under s. 271(1)(c) and imposed the penalty as aforesaid. 3. Aggrieved by the said order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner the assessee has filed this appeal before us. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that of the four items of loans, which were not accepted by the Appellate Assistant. Commissioner, the appellate Tribunal had accepted the assessee's explanation partially in regard to the loan in the Indira Devi's account and that the mere fact that in respect of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....see had not satisfactorily explained the following items of cash credits 1. Pachiammal Rs.16,000 2. -do- Rs. 5,000 3. Indira Devi on 10th Feb., 1970 Rs. 7,000 4. -do- on 21st Aug., 1970 Rs. 7,000 . . Rs. 35,000 So far as the credit in the name of Pachiammal is concerned, the assessee has filed an affidavit from Pachiammal. It was further urged before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner that her husband owned immovable property and that her husband was in affluent circumstances and was running a ration shop. Neither the Income-tax Officer nor the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had examined Pachiammal and established that the explanations offered by the assessee in this regard are false. As....