1985 (8) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. No explanation was given by the assessee before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, therefore, imposed a penalty of Rs. 94, 560. The assessee being aggrieved by the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal deleted the penalty holding that the Department had not proved that the difference was such which could by itself lead to an inference that the assessee had committed any fraud or gross or wilful neglect in returning the correct income and on that account the levy of penalty was cancelled. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue moved the Tribunal for referring the case to this court for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nch. The law has now been finally settled so far as this court is concerned. The Full Bench laid down that once a difference of more than 20% between the assessed income and the returned income occurred, it would be presumed that the assessee had concealed his correct income. It also laid down that, in the situation covered by the Explanation, the onus would be upon the assessee to show that there was no fraud or any gross or wilful neglect on his part. It must follow that the Revenue had no more to establish that there was any deliberate endeavour by the assessee to conceal the correct income. The above being the law, the Tribunal clearly erred in placing the onus upon the Department to establish that the difference between the incom....