1989 (11) TMI 10

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....947-48 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act ?" The facts as stated are that the assessee, Chandi Prasad Khaitan, submitted his return for the assessment year 1947-48, but it was found that he had concealed his income of Rs. 1,75,000. The assessee had a bank account in the Fountain Branch of Punjab National Bank Limited, Delhi, wherein a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was deposited on April 1, 1947. He could not give a satisfactory explanation for this deposit. First, he made an attempt to deny the existence of this bank account in his name, but, subsequently, he admitted that his friend,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC), wherein it was held that if there is no evidence on the record, except the explanation given by the assessee and this explanation is found to be false, it does not follow that the receipt constitutes his taxable income. It cannot be said that the findings given in the assessment proceedings for determining or computing the tax are conclusive. However, this finding was held to be good evidence and it was held that, before imposing penalty, the factum of circumstances must reasonably point to the conclusion that the disputed amount represented income and that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. Learned counsel f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eedings are a good item of evidence in the penalty proceedings as well, but it was held that the penalty could not be levied solely on the basis of the finding given in the order of assessment. Kandaswami Pillai v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 612 (Mad) and V. P. Samtani v. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 693 (Cal) are also cases wherein it was held that penalty under section 271 (1) (c) can be levied when the assessee concealed his income. In L. K. Shaik Mohd. Bros. v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 808 (Mad), it has been held that, in penalty proceedings, the burden of proof is on the Revenue but when there was a finding arrived by the Tribunal based on the material in the assessment proceedings that there was conscious concealment and deliberate avoidance of assessable ....