TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (8) TMI 10
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The assessee was an individual. The business, according to the return filed, was in the name and style of D.N. Mitra & Co. In making the assessment, the ITO brought to tax an amount of Rs. 22,944 as representing the income of Hindusthan Trading Corporation, a concern which was said to belong to the assessee's wife, and in respect of which the income shown by the assessee's wife was Rs. 9,154. The assessee's wife had also shown in Sec. F of the return filed by her, hundi loans of Rs. 62,500. The ITO brought this amount, which appeared as credits in the books of Hindusthan Trading Corporation, to tax as undisclosed sources of income of the assessee. He also disallowed interest relating thereto of Rs. 13,661. In bringing the income shown by H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here was another appeal against the penalty imposed by the IAC. Both the appeals were heard and disposed of by the Tribunal by the self same order. The Tribunal upheld the addition for assessment purpose. In appeal against the order of the IAC, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee that no penalty could be imposed as the cash credit of Rs. 62,500 was shown by the wife of the assessee in Sec. F of her return and there was no question of the assessee having concealed any income. It was also asserted that the business of the Hindusthan Trading Corporation belonged to the wife and not to the assessee. Lastly, the quantum of penalty imposed was said to be excessive. On behalf of the Department, on the other hand, it was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses, the onus of proving that the business was benami was on the Department and as the Tribunal had upheld the addition of Rs. 91,154 for assessment purposes it had come to the conclusion that the Department had discharged that onus cast upon it for proving that the income belonged to the assessee. The Tribunal held that in view of this the penalty provisions were attracted. Looking to all the circumstances of the case, however, the Tribunal considered that the penalty imposed was excessive. The Tribunal, therefore, directed that the penalty should be reduced to the minimum imposable under the law and allowed the appeal in part. On the above facts and circumstances of the case, as directed by this court, the question as referred to above....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fer to quote here : " The case of the assessee as well as that of his wife, Bhadra Mitra, were being assessed by the same Income-tax Officer. There is no merit in the plea that there is any double assessment since Bhadra Mitra's assessment for this year has been cancelled and both the parties have not contested the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in her case any further. The question of inclusion of the income of Hindusthan Trading Corporation in the hands of the assessee had come up for consideration for the first time in the assessment year 1962-63. The Incometax Officer had examined the issue in great detail in his order dated 21st March, 1967, for the assessment year 1962-63. He found that the introduction of capital....