1980 (7) TMI 120

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing to the ITO, no independent evidence was produced. Later on, the assessee surrendered the said amount. So the said amount was added in the total amount of the assessee. The ITO at the time of completing the assessment initiated the penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. In penalty proceedings, on behalf of the assessee, no explanation was given. So, the ld. ITO was of the view that there was concealment of income on the part of the assessee and consequently he imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,500. In appeal, before the AAC, it was contended that the finding of the ITO was not correct. It was contended that for avoiding complications, a sum of Rs. 2,500 was surrendered. It was also contended that the creditor was repaid Rs. 1,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....According to him, in the present case, the returned income is less than 80 per cent of the finally assessed income and as such the explanation to s. 271(1)(c) is clearly attracted. Under the circumstances, it was for the assessee to show that there was no fraud or gross or wilful neglect in not disclosing the returned income. According to the ld. Departmental Representative the assessee failed to discharge the initial onus which lay upon it. 6. We have heard the parties and perused the evidence on record. From the facts it is clear that in the present case, the returned income is less than 80 per cent of the finally assessed income. So, the explanation to s. 271(1)(c) is clearly attracted. 7. The assessee gave detailed explanation bef....