TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (3) TMI 50
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is a registered firm. For the assessment year 1968-69, the firm submitted a return declaring a total income of Rs. 23,882. After making enquiries, the ITO completed the assessment by holding that the total income earned by the assessee in the year in question was Rs. 34,119. The difference between the returned and the assessed total income arose out of the two figures. One of them was Rs. 8,283 e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e return and in the column meant for the same. The IAC found that the assessee was guilty of fraud and gross negligence as he did not disclose the aforesaid amount. On the said findings, he imposed the minimum penalty of Rs. 8,228 on the assessee. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The matter came up for hearing before the Bench of two members of the Tribunal. They differed. Consequ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appearing for the assessee, however, stressed that, as the assessee was illiterate, it could be presumed on the facts and circumstances of the present case that the omission occurred due to his illiteracy. The statement made by the learned counsel does not impress us. It is not a question of presumption but of pleading and proof. The assessee did not file any affidavit or other evidence on record....