1978 (7) TMI 11

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? " The assessee owns a truck which is run in partnership with some other persons. He had 50 per cent. shares in two partnership firms. He filed a return on 29th July, 1968, disclosing an income of Rs. 4,000. The ITO, having come to know that the assessee had made investments to the tune of Rs. 15,000 in purchasing a truck, called upon the assessee to explain its source. The explanation offered by the assessee was not found believable and a sum of Rs. 13,000 was added as income from undisclosed sources. The ITO initiated penalty proceedings. The IAC found that the assessee did not maintain accounts of his income and outgoings. He did not produce any documentary evidence to sustain his explanation....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nscious disregard of his obligation. The facts on record do not point to this direction. " The Tribunal further held that the amendment brought about in subcl. (iii) of cl. (c) of sub-s. (1) of s. 271 was effective from 1st April, 1968, and was not retrospective. The IAC had no jurisdiction to impose penalty under the amended section. This has reference to the quantum of imposable penalty. The question of law referred to us, however, does not take in the quantum of penalty imposed on the assessee. The IAC had recorded several concrete findings. We do not find any discussion of those findings in the judgment of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has made general remarks that the explanation was not so unreasonable as to warrant a conclusion that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rs of, such income for the purpose of cl. (c) unless he proves that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or any gross or wilful neglect on his part. In other words, the presumption is that the assessee has concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars. This presumption is rebuttable only if the assessee proves affirmatively that the failure to return the correct income was not due to fraud or any gross or wilful neglect on his part. Thus, the burden is squarely on the assessee, not in relation to concealment either of income or of particulars thereof, but in a very distinct matter. The burden of proof on the assessee is that the failure to return the correct income was not due to either of the three things, ....