TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (2) TMI 93
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of unproved cash credits: . . . . Sh. Sant Singh 1,000 . . . Sh. Kewal Singh 1,000 . . . Sh. Gulzar Singh 2,000 . . . Sh. Khaushi Ram 5,000 Rs. 9,000 (iii) Addition in the name of M/s Phulka Rice Mills, Sirhind . Rs. 9,390 . . Total Rs. 26,137 3. The assessee aggrieved by the said assessment order went in appeal before the AAC. The AAC vide his order dt. 31st Oct., 1977 reduced the trading addition to Rs. 5,000 but confirmed the rest of the additions. When the matter came before the Tribunal, the Tribunal deleted even the addition of Rs. 5,000 sustained by the AAC in trading account. 4. The ITO on 17th March, 1977 with the original notice of demand issued a penalty notice under s. 271(1)(c) read with s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e explanation given by the assessee is frivolous. He argued at length that even explanations are not given for the cash credits in course of penalty proceedings. He submitted that contention of the assessee that due to business expediency the creditors could not be produced is a contention which will lead to strange consequences. He also placed his reliance on CIT vs. M. Habibullah (1982) 29 CTR (All) 281 : (1982) 10 Taxman 216 (All). The ld. counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that ITO never invoked the Explanation. He took us once again through the finding of the Tribunal in quantum appeal and placed his reliance on Calcutta High Court judgments in the cases of CIT vs. Bhuramal Manikchand (1981) 20 CTR (Cal) 244 : (1981....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he IAC himself who could levy the penalty. In support of his contention that law standing on the date when the return is filed is to apply, he placed his reliance on the case of Brij Mohan vs. CIT (1979) 12 CTR (SC) 198 : (1979) 120 ITR 1 (SC). Regarding onus, he took us through certain pages of assessee's compilation p. 26 being the affidavit of Khushi Ram, p. 30 being the copy of account of Sirhind Branch. He vehemently argued that s. 68 is for unproved cash credits and not for penalty. 6. The ld. Department al Representative in the rejoinder submitted that no plea can be taken as done by the ld. counsel for the assessee and in that support he relied on CIT vs. Raman Industries (1980) 14 CTR (P&H) 138 : (1980) 121 ITR 405 (P&H). Regardi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore us, there is no controversy about the facts that the return in the instant case was filed on 25th Nov., 1974, the law in form of ss. 271 and 274 standing on that date and provisions and clauses given therein did not authorise the ITO to levy the penalty in cases where concealed income was more than Rs. 25,000. There is also no controversy, about the fact that the concealed income taken into consideration by the ITO accounted to Rs. 7,744, +9,090, +9,320 i.e. Rs. 26,067 which is apparently more than Rs. 25,000. Their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan, supra, have clearly said that law applicable is the law operating on the date when return is filed and this has been the consistent view of this Bench in many....