TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (7) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see filed return of income on July 12, 1968, declaring "No loss". Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return on January 4, 1969, declaring a net loss of Rs. 9,490. The Income-tax Officer called for wealth statements from the assessee. The wealth statements did not reveal that the assessee had invested any amount in a plot of land in T. Nagar. However, a raid made in the premises of E. V. Saroja and K. R. Sadayappan revealed the information that the assessee along with Smt. P. S. S. Ekammai Achi and A. L. M. Perianna Chettiar had purchased a plot of land in T. Nagar on April 13, 1965, from Smt. E. V. Saroja. The plot was purchased in the name of the assessee's son, Sri Ramakrishnan. In the assessment, it was stated that the total c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essary to refer to the relevant portions of the Tribunal's order in respect of which certain contentions were urged before us. The Tribunal, in its order, had observed, inter alia, as follows : "We have considered the rival submissions. At first, we were impressed by the argument of the Departmental representative that it is a fit case for the levy of penalty. However, when we find that the assessee had at no time given any false or different particulars about this property in his return of income or at any time during the assessment proceedings, there cannot be any question of his having filed any incorrect particulars and more so of the income. The Departmental representative was unable to point out any occasion when the assessee has s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s no acceptance that the addition represented the concealed income. Having regard to all these, we are of the view that the assessee's case falls within the ratio of the decisions in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC) and CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa and Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC). In view of what we have expressed above, we find no reasons to sustain the penalty. Accordingly, we cancel the penalty." The penalty was set aside. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue moved the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Act to refer the following questions of law to the High Court: "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271 ( 1 ) (c) in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut the said statement could not serve the purpose of a regular cash book disclosing such cash balance, as the assessee's personal expenses were not shown in the statement. If these were taken note of, the surplus, if any, would be wiped off. In the end, he came to the conclusion that the assessee had not accounted for the full consideration for the plot purchased by him in the name of his son and that the balance of the consideration should have been met out of income from undisclosed sources." According to the High Court, no question of law arose. Aggrieved thereby, the Revenue moved this court and obtained leave under article 136 of the Constitution. The short point is In the facts and circumstances of this case and in the light of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....servation of this court at page 20 of the report where this court reiterated that the effect of the Explanation was that where the total income returned by any person was less than 80% of the total income assessed, the onus was on such person to prove that the failure to file the correct income did not arise from any fraud or any gross or wilful neglect on his part, and unless he did so, he should be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars for the purpose of section 271(1) of the Act. The position, therefore, is that the moment the stipulated difference was there, the onus to, prove that it was not the failure of the assessee or fraud of the assessee or neglect of the assessee that caused t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en by the assessee has been accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal stated that, in the instant case, no doubt the Income-tax Officer was justified in saying that not only the explanation, was not convincing but false because there was no cash available to the assessee for payment of the extra money paid. Therefore, no explanation was put forward as to wherefrom the extra money came. If that was the position and the further presumption was that the assessee was guilty of fraud, then the subsequent presumption followed that the assessee has concealed the income and that can be rebutted only by cogent and reliable evidence. No such attempt in this case was made. In that view of the matter, in our opinion, it cannot be said that, in this case, ....