TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (11) TMI 42
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are as follows: (i) The assessee is an individual and he filed income-tax returns for the assessment years in question, within the time allowed under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee filed revised returns for the assessment years 1989-1990 to 1997-1998 on October 6, 1997. In the revised returns, the assessee disclosed agricultural income for the first time. The Assessing Officer did not accept the agricultural income declared in the revised returns as genuine and treated the same as an income from other sources. The Assessing Officer, after scrutinising the details furnished by the assessee, worked out the differences between the investments and the source accepted by the assessee and treated the same as income of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ciples relating to burden of proof?" Admittedly, the assessee is an individual and for the assessment years under consideration, he had filed revised income-tax returns, which was not accepted by the Assessing Officer, who worked out the differences between the investments made by the assessee and the source of income accepted by him, and treated the same as undisclosed income under sections 68 and 69 of the Income-tax Act. The said assessment orders dated March 30, 1999, were challenged by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment for the year 1993-1994; set aside the order of assessment for the year 1994-1995 for the limited purpose of making enquiries and affording reasonable o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bunal agreed with the contentions of the assessee that they had filed returns for the assessment year 1990-91. The Tribunal also agreed with the assessee that the assessee could have had enough savings from earlier years and he was getting good support from his father-in-law in the form of food grains and annual cash gifts and clothes. The Tribunal held that the availability of funds to the assessee for investments from the aforesaid source should have been accepted and therefore deleted all the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the orders of assessment. The above narrated findings of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal are purely findings of fact. The Tribunal, after analysing the entire case, taking into consideration the explan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....donations were made by the Maharani of Indore to the assessee from time to time, was not considered while imposing penalty on the assessee. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee voluntarily offered the income for assessment. The Tribunal further considered that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, throughout the body of the order, treated the assessee as a defaulter and did not invoke the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal also held that even if the Explanation was invoked, there was nothing to indicate that the assessee committed fraud or gross or wilful neglect in returning the income. On these findings, the Tribunal set aside the order imposing penalty on the assessee. The penalty has been set aside on the ....