1976 (9) TMI 34

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s account at the end of the year as per his account books. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the statement of the assessee that his household expenses during the accounting year commencing on 1st April, 1960, and ending on 31st March, 1961, amounted to only Rs. 2,000. The Income-tax Officer estimated that the household expenses of the assessee must have been at the rate of Rs. 500 per month and at that rate he must have spent Rs. 6,000 during the accounting year. Thus, the difference of Rs. 4,000 was added in his income for the purpose of assessment. This addition was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and also by the Tribunal on appeal. The penalty proceedings were initiated at the time of completing the assessment and a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... petitioner, contended that there was no evidence before the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. This contention of Mr. Arora is devoid of merit and cannot be accepted. It will be observed that there was sufficient evidence before the Tribunal for coming to this conclusion and imposing the penalty. The assessee was the managing director of Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., Ludhiana, during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under reference. He derived income from property, dividends, interest and shares from various firms. It is unbelievable and does not stand to reason that the assessee would incur Rs. 2,000 only on his househo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....C) their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed : " Before penalty can be imposed, the entirety of circumstances must reasonably point to the conclusion that the disputed amount represented income and that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars." In a later decision in D. M. Manasvi v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1972] 86 ITR 557, 565 (SC) it was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as follows : " In this respect we find that in the present case the inference that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars is based not merely upon the falsity of the expla....