2008 (2) TMI 360

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n-1 to Section 271(1) as stood after the amendment of 1986. The assessment year involved in this case is 1977-78. At that time, the Explanation-1, more particularly, clause (B) thereof stood as follows: "Explanation 1: -Where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under this Act- (A) Such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (or the Commissioner (Appeals) to be false, or (B) Such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate, then, the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purpose of clause(c) of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....correct, it was evident that he was guilty of concealment of facts, material to computation of the total income, and the onus lie upon him to show that the explanation was bona fide. The Tribunal in holding otherwise has erred in law by relying on the explanation to Section 271(1) as it stood amended in 1986. However, we do not find any force in this submission. The provision as existed in the assessment year 1977-78 is not materially different from the one as it was amended in 1986. The only difference in the two is that earlier what was provided in the proviso to Explanation-I has now been made part of the explanation I Clause(B) itself but in substance the import of the provision is same. Here is a case where certain material is said to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....facts relevant in respect to the said material and thereafter the onus lay upon the Department to dispute the same. Learned counsel for the Revenue could not show as to what relevant material was not disclosed by the assessee which it ought to have disclosed and how and in what manner it could say that the explanation offered by the assessee was not bona fide. Moreover, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the explanation offered by the assessee was not found lacking bona fide. Therefore, we do not find any reason to take a different view particularly in absence of any reason pursuing this Court to take a different view. The judgment relied upon on behalf of the Revenue is not at all applicable. Sri Govind Krishna has relied upon a ju....