TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (3) TMI 59
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was concealment? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the offer of additional income being made to purchase peace with the Department, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was concealment? 4. The additions made in the assessment being only income from other sources by way of investments, whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was concealment without considering the ingredients of Explanation 1 to section 271(I)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 5. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that there is concealment of such income without specifying under what clause of Explanation 1 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income of Rs. 1,64,910 which included Rs. 55,000 added as income from other sources. For the assessment year 1980-81, the assessee had filed the original return on August 18, 1980, admitting a total income of Rs. 42,653. The assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 88,450. On a search conducted the assessee made a disclosure under section 273A of a sum of Rs. 74,500 as investment in a vehicle. Later, she filed a revised return on May 21, 1985, offering a further sum of Rs. 13,231 as income on account of investment in immovable property. In the revised return, the total income declared was Rs. 1,76,181. For this year also, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 147(a) with the approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section 273A. According to counsel, the assessee is saved by the proviso to the Explanation and, therefore, the Explanation does not at all apply so also the main provision of section 271(1)(c). Counsel submitted the Tribunal dealt only with the argument that section 271(1)(c) concealment should be read with section 273A. Counsel submitted the question has to be examined in the light of the Explanation to the proviso. Counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the assessee had not disclosed the income by way of investment in vehicles and landed properties. Only after the search was conducted the assessee first made the declaration under section 273A. Counsel further submitted that even without the aid of the Explanation the main pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to discharge that burden, the presumption that he had concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof is available to be drawn. The principal logical import of the explanation is to shift the burden of proof from the Revenue on to the assessee. Rebuttal must be on materials relevant and cogent. Only if the initial burden is discharged would the assessee get out of the mischief. The court in K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 held that the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) is a part of section 271. When the Assessing Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner issues a notice under section 271, he makes the assessee aware that the provisions thereof are to be used against him. These provisions include the Explana....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessment was later reopened under section 147(a) and in the proceedings dated November 20, 1981, the total income was determined at Rs. 41,071. Further, a search was also conducted in the assessee's residence on March 5, 1985. It is thereafter the assessee made a disclosure under section 273A in respect of a sum of Rs. 40,000 as unexplained investment. Later, the assessee filed another return on May 21, 1985, offering an additional amount of Rs. 19,337 as income on account of investment in an immovable property. It is, therefore, evident that these facts are well within the knowledge of the assessee. Those facts were disclosed only after the search was conducted. No acceptable explanation has been given by the assessee to show that the....