TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (2) TMI 86
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....71(1)(c) of the Act. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows: The applicant is being assessed to income-tax in the status of an individual. He was a partner in the firm, M/s. Sunder Timber Mart. On December 4, 1976, a search was conducted in the residential premises of the applicant. During the search some assets including cash of Rs. 57,000 were found. At the time of search, the statement of the applicant was also recorded. In that statement he had stated that the amount has been taken by him from his relatives and friends. More specifically, he had stated that a sum of Rs. 2,000 belongs to his son, Sri Pritam Singh, Rs. 2,000 belongs to M/s. Sunder Timber Mart and Rs. 400 belongs to his daughter-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x (Appeals) had accepted the plea raised by the applicant and cancelled the penalty. Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the various submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and taking into consideration the material on record restored the penalty order on the following reasons: "We have carefully considered the rival contentions as also the various documents on record and the case law cited before us. On consideration of the entire facts of the case we are of the opinion that the appeal must succeed. As mentioned above, the addition of Rs. 48,000 already stands confirmed in the quantum proceedings. In the penalty proceedings no fresh evidence or additional ci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which is being offered by the assessee, three depositors, S/Shri Satya Pal Bhatia Raghubir Singh and Shiv Gopal Gupta, had made deposits in December 1, 1976, i.e., three days before the search took place at the residential premises of the assessee and the fourth depositor, namely, Shri Sita Ram Gupta, had deposited the amount on December 3, 1976, i.e., only a day earlier before the search. In the circumstances, if the deposits were genuine, they were fresh in the memory of the assessee and he should have disclosed the names of the depositors while his statement was being recorded as he had disclosed the names of Pritam Singh, Surendar Kaur and M/s. Sunder Timber Mart. The fact that the books of M/s. Sunder Timber Mart record the deposits on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....v Gopal Gupta, was not routed through banks and the amount is said to have been advanced from the past savings." We have heard Sri Satish Mandhyan, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Shambhoo Chopra, learned standing counsel for the Revenue. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as the cash found at the time of search had been explained and the deposits given in the firm had been accepted in the assessment of the firm there was no justification for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. He further submitted that the persons who had given the cash to the applicant had come forward and admitted that the amount had been given by him which could not have been disbelieved. Sri Shambhoo Chopra, learned stand....