Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2006 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (10) TMI 130 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTPenalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) by Tribunal - concealment of particulars of its income - unexplained cash credits - satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal while dealing with explanation has recorded a finding of fact that the applicant has not been able to substantiate the explanation to the effect that the depositors have received gifts in any of the previous years or had any independent source of income; the applicant has not been able to prove that this explanation was bona fide; there was no documentary evidence in support of the assessee's contention; even the name of the person from whom the alleged gifts were received, were not disclosed to the Department; the minor depositors were intimately related to the partners of the assessee-firm; the explanation was baseless and the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act were attracted in the present case. We find that under the provisions of the Act, the Income-tax Officer is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it in writing. It can be gathered from the assessment order itself. In D. M. Manasvi [1972 (9) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT], the apex court has clearly held that the Income-tax Officer should be satisfied during the course of the assessment proceedings that the assessee had concealed his particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The satisfaction can be gathered from the assessment order. In the present case, we find that the Income-tax Officer had material before him for being satisfied that the applicant has concealed the particulars of his income and, therefore, penalty proceedings have rightly been initiated. We are, therefore, with great respect unable to persuade ourselves to follow the view taken by the Delhi High Court in case of Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. [1998 (10) TMI 13 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Diwan Enterprises [1998 (11) TMI 27 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. Thus, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
|