TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (9) TMI 76
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d a return admitting a total income of Rs.82,000 including the income of Rs.75,000 as estimated from abkari business. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on a total income of Rs.1,52,950 including an addition of Rs.94,000 as income from other sources on the basis of the increase in the net wealth as could be gathered from wealth-tax statements furnished by the assessee. The Assessing Officer treated this Rs.94,000 as income and completed the assessment on that basis. The assessee did not challenge the addition. The Assessing Officer, during the course of the assessment, initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and issued a notice to the assessee to show cause why penalty under section 271(1)(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs.33,295, the minimum prescribed under the Act. The assessee appealed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Trivandrum. His explanation that he had received the money from his father-in-law, was found unsubstantiated. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) noticed that the assessee did not have any evidence in support of his claim that the amount was received by him from his father-in-law. He also noticed that the assessee was not able to show that the amount was actually received by him through legal channels. In that situation, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) agreed with the order imposing penalty and dismissed the appeal noticing that the penalty levied was also the mi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Appeals) and that of the Assessing Officer. It is this decision of the Tribunal that is challenged in this appeal at the instance of the Revenue. In the memorandum of -appeal the following substantial questions of law are suggested as arising in this appeal: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that 'the Assessing Officer has not established conscious concealment of income by the assessee'; 'no material has been brought on record to show that it was a false claim of the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Officer. Learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, contended that Explanation 1 had no application at all in this case because no explanation from the assessee was sought regarding concealment at the time of completing the assessment and this was put to the assessee only at the stage of the penalty proceedings. We may straightaway say that this argument cannot be accepted on the basis of section 69 of the Income-tax Act under which the addition is made while completing the assessment. It is also a fact that the assessee accepted the addition made under section 69 of the Act and did not challenge it in any appeal. It is, therefore, clear that the circumstances were put to the assessee even while completing the assessment or must....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y could come into his hands legally except through a bank. The amount could be paid over to the assessee by the father-in-law only by way of a cheque or only after withdrawing the same from the bank. The assessee did not produce any material in support of his case that the amount was something received from his father-in-law, who was employed abroad. In fact in his explanation before the Assessing Officer dated August 29, 1999, he had clearly stated that no documentary evidence was available in respect of the receipt of Rs.70,000 from his father-in-law. In that situation, it is clear that he has failed to substantiate his explanation and hence in terms of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it must be taken that there is concealm....