TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (7) TMI 7
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nswer to the first question be in the negative, whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that amended provisions of s. 271 (1)(c) with effect from April 1, 1968, about the quantum of penalty will not be applicable for the assessment year 1964-65, though the assessee had filed a revised return of income dated 14th August, 1968, after the introduction of that amendment ? " This case relates to a penalty of Rs. 21,300 imposed by the IAC, Indore Range, Indore, for default under s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In the opinion of the Department the income concealed was the cash credits of the amounts of Rs. 1,500, Rs. 1,800 and Rs. 17,980. The penalty imposed was with respect to these amounts. The AAC found that the cash credit of Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o show that he had not committed any default or the alleged concealment. In regard to the quantum of penalty, he applied the higher quantum as applied from April 1, 1968, as the assessee had filed a revised return of income after the amendment of s. 271(1)(c). The assessee came up in appeal against the imposition of penalty and the Tribunal has set aside the penalty. The Tribunal has taken the view that the addition of income in respect of the cash credits in the assessee's account is because the explanation of the assessee had not been accepted. There was no other material before the Department to hold that it was the assessee's income and, therefore, in the circumstances of the case, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Anwar Ali'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. The assessee did not prove in terms of the Explanation that he committed no default. It would be seen that the explanation of the assessee that he had borrowed from his father a sum of Rs. 22,980 has not been accepted. This was on the ground that the father could not have saved such a large amount from the agricultural income. In appeal, the AAC came to the conclusion that the father could have at least saved a sum of Rs. 5,000 and, therefore, reduced the addition of income by Rs. 5,000. In a case like this when the assessee had borrowed the money from his relative or his father, all that the assessee could do was to produce the person, who gave such money, in evidence. The father had been examined, but his evidence did not carry the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in fact the income of the assessee. But if the total income returned was less than 80% of the total income assessed, the burden is on the assessee to prove that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from fraud or any gross or wilful neglect. The proof necessary under this Explanation was not as required in a criminal case. The assessee here had shown that the father had lent the money to him and now unless the Department had something more than mere estimate of the father's ability to save the amount in question the guilt of concealment could not be held to have been established. Something more than their estimate would be necessary to say that the father could not have such an income and that he could not have saved a larg....