TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the conclusion of the Tribunal that there was evidence establishing concealment of income by the assessee is rationally possible and is perverse ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that penalty could be levied under section 271 (1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the assessee's case ? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material before the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the assessee sold the First Prize Winning ticket in the 13th Raffle of the Andhra Pradesh Welfare Fund to Kumari Alpana of Bombay for a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 ? " (The above question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for Rs.28,000. On a complaint laid for offences under sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the police investigated into it and it revealed that the assessee had the services of one Shri Diwakar Setty, paid him Rs. 5,000 and got sold the first prize ticket to Kumari Alpana and thereby he made a profit of Rs. 95,000. With regard to the second ticket, he purchased it for Rs. 21,000 and sold it for Rs. 28,000 and thereby he earned Rs. 7,000 as profit. He did not disclose the source of Rs. 21,000 and thereby he concealed an income of Rs. 1,23,000. That amount was added to the income returned by the assessee. The assessee disputed the same. But the Appellate Tribunal found as a fact that the assessee earned an income of Rs. 95,000 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions of law and accordingly made a reference on questions Nos. 1 and 2 in R. C. No. 30 of 1980 Thakur V. Hari Prasad v. CIT [1987] 167 ITR 603-(which is just now disposed of) and refused to make a reference on questions Nos. 3 to 5 and additional question. Accordingly, this application came to be filed. Sri Ratnakar, learned counsel for the assessee, has contended that the findings of the Appellate Tribunal are based on no evidence and no reasonable man would reach the finding on the basis of the evidence on record. He, therefore, says that this court may direct the Appellate Tribunal to state the case on those four questions for decision of this court. He has taken us through the order of the Appellate Tribunal. On going through the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar Setty, etc., on record and they were subjected to close cross-examination. The entire evidence was considered, the findings of the Appellate Tribunal during the quantum assessment proceedings also was considered. This is the evidence available on record. We have considered in extenso in R. C. No. 30 of 1980 (Thakur V. Hari Prasad v. CIT [1987] 167 ITR 603) just now disposed of and held that the Appellate Tribunal has power to call for a report from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner after recording evidence, that, it is evidence and it is in statutory compliance of section 274(1) of the Act for varied reasons given in support thereof. We need no reiteration of the same. Since R. C. No. 30 of 1980 is also inter se between the same part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be sufficient to attract the penalty proceedings under section 27 l(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without any further finding." In D. M. Manasvi v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 557, the Supreme Court pointed out at page 565 as follows : "In this respect, we find that in the present case the inference that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars is based not merely upon the falsity of the explanation given by the assessee. On the contrary, it is made amply clear by the order of the Tribunal that there was positive material to indicate that the business of Kohinoor Mills belonged to the assessee and the whole scheme was to disguise the profits of the assessee a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AIR 1981 SC 379. In Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 940, five judges) and Badaku Joti Svant v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC 1746, five judges), it was held that the statements recorded by customs officials are also evidence. Therefore, it must be held that the statements of M. Sriramulu, Shankaraiah, Sri L. Malakondaiah, District Collector, East Godavari, Diwakar Setty, etc., constitute clear, evidence and they can be relied upon. They were also examined and cross-examined. The findings in the assessment proceedings were also taken into consideration. The conduct of the assessee in concealing the income and the false explanation are also connecting links to the totality of circumstances. Therefore, the finding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
