TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (2) TMI 1335
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oint of time. She is heart patient. During the relevant assessment year, assessee received gifts of Rs. 1,20,000 as under:- Name of the Donors Income Tax GIR/ PAN /Ward of Donors Mode of Gift Amount of Gift Relationship a. Gianchand G-1351 Cheque 20,000 Nephew Lakhmichand Ward 1(4) KYN b. Ekta Jaipal E-708 Cheque 20,000 Wife of Nephew Ward 1(4) KYN c. Maya M-1665 Cheque 20,000 Wife of Kantilal Nephew ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not have any control over them. 4. Apprehending that the donors will be harassed, the assessee, to buy peace, to avoid litigation and to avoid any other inconvenience to the donors, voluntarily offered the gifts for taxation. She made an application under section 273A to the CIT, for the waiver of penalty and interest. 5. The question posed before the CIT(A) was that whether penalty could be levied on the panoply of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) reads as under:- "Explanation 1 - Where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under this Act,- (A)such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an expla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alse evidence, if he, (i) legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or (ii) being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject; (iii) makes any statement, which is false, and (iv) which he either knows or believes to be false, or does not believe to be true. 8. Apropos the shifting and weighing of evidence, the law in this regard is canonized in the dictum:-"Falsus in UNO, falsus in Omnibus". False in one thing, false in everything. This maxim relates to credibility of witnesses, for a witness caught telling a lie in one thing discredits himself in regard to the rest of his testimony. Although the doctrine of Falsus in UNO, Falsus in Omnibus is applicable in criminal law, in the case of Amal Ku....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lanation is sought. These are the basic requirements of natural justice desired by the Legislature for providing this Explanation. Therefore, the initial burden is on the Department to prima facie record that there was concealment and thereafter the explanation is to be sought and in case the explanation is found to be false, then to the extent the income is found to have been concealed and the explanation is found to be false, then the authority can proceed against the assessee. 10. In the case of CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2000] 241 ITR 124 (MP) action under section 132 was taken against the assessee. This led to reopening of the assessment. Assessee revised the returns. Assessing Officer levied the penalty rejecting the contention ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tribunal. It was held that the initial burden lies on the Revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The burden shifts to the assessee only if he fails to offer any explanation for the undisclosed income or offers an explanation, which is found to be false by the Assessing Officer. However, the proviso to Explanation 1 provides for shifting of this burden again where the explanation offered by the assessee is found to be bona fide. Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated July 26, 2001 affirmed the view taken by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Mittal ( supra). The following order is passed:- "We have read the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. (supra) can no longer be said to be applicable. The implication of this decision is that if the case of the assessee comes within the ken of Explanation, then shelter of Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd.'s decision cannot be taken. However, if assessee's explanation is found not to be false and bona fide is proved, then there can be no penalty for concealment. 12. The Apex Court in the case of Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai AIR 1976 SC 1455 (at pages 1467-68) has held that the ruling of a superior Court is not of scriptural sanctity but it is of ratio-wise luminosity within the edifice of facts where the judicial lamp plays the legal flame. Each case depends on its own facts, and....