TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (2) TMI 50
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tribunal is a reasonable view to take on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ? " In the accounts of the assessee in the previous assessment year 1965-66 there were certain amounts shown as borrowed from four parties : Rs. Seth Pahlarai Govindarai, Madras 15,000 Seth Kanyalal Pahlarai, Madras 10,000 Seth Hargovindsing Nihalsing, Madras 10,000 Seth Dwarkadas Lakshmichand, Madras 10,000 ------------ 45,000 ------------ A scrutiny of the entries regarding the borrowings and repayments showed certain discrepancies. Though the addresses of all those bankers were shown to be in Madras, the credits as well as the debits appeared in the books in Tuticorin on the same day. They were claimed to have been borr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s for the levy of penalty in a case where the assessee conceals the particulars of his income or furnishes inaccurate particulars thereof. In the present case, as seen already, as soon as the ITO noticed certain features about the entries as well as about the persons, the assessee agreed to the assessment of the peak credit. The agreement could only be on the basis that the amounts belonged to the assessee and that the amounts earned by it were brought in the form of cash credits in the names of strangers. In the face of the assessee's own admission that the amount represented its income, there is absolutely no other evidence required to show that the amount represented its income and that it had been concealed from the return. The Tribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts as his income from business for the year in question. Once this true position is established, it would appear that it would be sufficient for the department to seek to discharge the onus in the penalty proceedings by relying upon this admission........" We agree with this statement of the legal position. In a case where the assessee himself has admitted that the amount represented his own income, no further evidence would be necessary to show that it was the amount which represented his income and that it had been concealed in the return. Learned counsel for the assessee cited a decision, Gumani Ram Siri Ram v. CIT [1972] 85 ITR 67 (Punj). In that case, the ITO noticed certain cash deposits in the name of one Ramesh Trading Company....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that case, the question which arose for consideration was whether the Expln. to s.271(1)(c)was applicable. It is in the context of the Expln. that the court went into the question whether there was any fraud or negligence. We are not concerned in the present case with any such plea based on the Expln. which in some circumstances threw the onus on the assessee. The other decision in T. C. No. 222 of 1975 in the case of CIT v. Gordhandas Moolchand (since reported in [1979] 116 ITR 893) was a case where there was a voluntary disclosure by the assessee to the extent of Rs. 3,85,000. The ITO found another sum of Rs. 2,15,000 to be income. These totalled Rs. 6,00,000. In making the assessment for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64, the ....