1989 (4) TMI 70

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AL CHAND MITAL J. -The assessee was finally, assessed at Rs. 1,55,492 against the returned income of Rs. 94,846. Since the returned income was less than 80 per cent. of the assessed income, in the penalty proceedings, the Explanation to section 271 (1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), became applicable and presumptions were raised against the assessee and since he was not abl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he concealment is beyond 20 per cent. of the returned income, then the Explanation becomes applicable and presumptions have to be raised against the assessee which he can rebut but in case concealment does not exceed 20 per cent, the penalty is still leviable but, in this situation, the onus lies on the Department to prove concealment. Therefore, the Explanation has to be read with section 271 ( 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....decisions of our court : 1. Vishwakarma Industries v. CIT [1982] 135 ITR 652 [FB]. 2. CIT v. Shri Rajeshwar Singh [1986] 162 ITR 173. 3. CIT v. Surinder Singh [1986] 160 ITR 456. The Full Bench judgment of this court in Vishwakarma Industries' case [1982] 135 ITR 652 has been approved by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose [1987] 165 ITR 14 and Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 17....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing Assistant Commissioner imposed the penalty and that was challenged before the Tribunal on the ground that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to do so either on the date he issued notice or on the date he passed the order of penalty. The question posed for determination is as to the relevant date for seeing the jurisdiction of the authority to impose penalty. On this ques....