| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 1808 1992 SLD 1808 (1992) 197 ITR 144 |
Allahabad High Court
K.P. SINGH AND R.K. GULATI, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
K.P. SINGH AND R.K. GULATI, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Additional Commissioner of IncomE tax
v.
Irshad Ali
Law:
Section:
Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Assessment year 1967-68 - Assessee claimed that he had purchased two buses out of his past savings and running income and in support of same produced his account books - ITO did not believe assessee's stand and accordingly assessed him at an income of Rs. 28,670 as against returned income of Rs. 10,225 - Subsequently, IAC imposed penalty upon assessee under Explanation to section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income - Tribunal set aside penalty order holding that IAC had not proved that disparity between income assessed and returned arose because assessee earned a higher income but did not disclose it in his return and that negative burden on assessee in view of Explanation to section 271(1)(c) was discharged when he filed return on basis of his books of account - Tribunal did not deal with assessee's account books to show that assessee had discharged burden in view of Explanation to section 271(1)(c) and also did not indicate in its order that books of account relied upon by assessee furnished cogent evidence to rebut presumption against him - Whether Tribunal was wrong in placing burden of proof on department and as such Tribunal was required to decide question of cancellation of penalty imposed afresh - Held, yes. FACTS For the assessment year 1967-68, the assessee claimed that he had purchased two buses out of his past savings and running income and in support of the same produced the account books maintained by him. The ITO did not believe the assessee's stand and accordingly assessed him at an income of Rs. 28,670 as against returned income of Rs. 10,225. Subsequently, the IAC imposed penalty upon the assessee underExplanation to section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. On appeal, the Tribunal set aside the penalty order holding that the IAC had not proved that the disparity between the income assessed and returned arose because the assessee earned a higher income but he did not disclose it in his return and that the negative burden on the assessee in view of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) was discharged when the assessee filed the return on theβ¦
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492