1981 (11) TMI 80

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of convenience. 2. These appeals have been filed against the order of the AAC confirming the penalty of Rs. 5,000 imposed by the ITO under s. 271(1) (c) of the IT Act for the asst. yr. 1965-66nd the penalty of Rs. 147 imposed under the aforesaid provisions for the asst. yr. 1966-67. 3. The relevant facts are that for the asst. yr. 1965-66, the ITO made an addition of Rs. 13,750 in computing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....allowances received by him during the year 1946 as a Railway Official. The AAC rejected this explanation on the ground that if the assessee had really saved any part of his travelling and daily allowances, he should have included the amounts so saved in his return of income for the relevant year in which he had received the said allowances. He, therefore, held that the assessee had failed to subst....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Engineering Corporation vs. CIT (1981)20 CTR (Cal) 228: (1981) 130 ITR 602 (Cal), where in it has been held that the fiction contained in s. 69 of the IT Act, deeming unexplained investment to be the income of the assessee, had to be taken into account in penalty proceedings also. The ld. Deptl. Rep. contended that having regard to the principles laid down by the Calcutta High Court in the above m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion to note that in the case of CIT vs. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC), the Supreme Court have held that the department must establish that the receipt of the amount in dispute constituted income of the assessee. According to the Supreme Court, if there is no evidence on the report except the explanation given by the assessee, which explanation has been found to be false, it does not follow that....