TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1973 (1) TMI 5
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unj Enterprises where it was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of Bandsaw Blades and wire netting. The petitioner-firm is alleged to have raised loans from some of the parties at Madras which were taken against hundis for a specified period. The branch of the petitioner-firm at Trivandrum was closed some time during August, 1963. In the course of assessment proceedings, for the assessment year 1964-65, the Income-tax Officer enquired from the petitioner-firm about these loans. The firm produced evidence in the form of hundis before the Income-tax Officer. The Income-tax Officer was also informed that some of the loans were received by drafts and even the payments towards interest were made by drafts. The Income-tax Officer wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... concealment of the particulars of income. The mere fact that the assessee has given a false explanation, does not prove that the disputed amount constitutes income of the assessee. Moreover, the finding given during the course of the assessment proceedings that a particular receipt is income after rejecting the explanation given by the assessee as false would, prima facie, be sufficient for establishing in the penalty proceedings that the disputed amount was the assessee's income, but it must be remembered that since the said proceedings are of penal nature, the burden is on the department to prove that a particular amount is a revenue receipt. The finding given in the assessment proceedings that the explanation furnished by the assessee w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee and once it was proved that the same was the income of the assessee and that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income or had deliberately furnished inadequate particulars of such income, the penalty could be imposed. But in a case where the assessee himself, during the course of the assessment proceedings, files a revised return and owns the amount in question as his income and he also having earlier filed a return concealing the said income by deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars of that income, the moment the said admission of the assessee is proved by the department during the course of the penalty proceedings the onus on the department is discharged. In that situation, the assessee is put to proof and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also took the same view as I am inclined to take in this case. In that case during the course of the assessment proceedings of the firm, Durga Timber Works, the Income-tax Officer noticed cash credits to the tune of Rs. 17,500 in certain accounts and the accounts were shown as squared up. Similarly, a sum of Rs. 36,900 was shown in the assessee's books as having been invested in a supposed factory out of which a sum of Rs. 22,800 was shown as adjusted. But, for the balance of Rs. 14,100 no explanation was given. When the assessee was asked to adduce evidence to establish these cash credits and to explain the source of investment of Rs. 14,100, it admitted that the two amounts could be treated as its concealed income and included in its tota....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at this amount was his income. " This case is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case because in the present case the assessee himself filed the revised return wherein he admitted the amount in question to be his income, and it was only for the department to have proved the admission of the assessee during the course of the penalty proceedings though it was open to the assessee to lead evidence to show that the said admission was not correctly made or was not binding on him. The only other case on which the learned counsel for the petitioner relies is I.T.R. No. 42 of 1971, Krishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v. Commissioner of Income-tax decided by a Division Bench of this court on December 18, 1972. That decision is also n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the hundis in favour of the creditors were genuine and that the surrender was made simply to avoid botheration. That being so it was incumbent upon the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to have afforded the assessee full opportunity to prove its assertions, it was an indisputable right which had been denied to the assessee without any justification. " In the present case, when the assessee was given a notice during the penalty proceedings, the assessee did not take the plea that the amounts in question were loans and that the assessee was prepared to lead evidence to prove this fact. The plea of the assessee in the penalty proceedings, as is contained in annexure " A ", is in the following words : " The assessee did not conceal any....