TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent Counsel :- A.Kumar,A.N. Mahajan,B.J.Agarwal,D. Awasthi,G. Krishna,R.K. Upadhyay,S.Chopra 1. These two appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment as jointly agreed by the learned counsel for the parties. Appeal No.72 of 2002 2. The Appeal No.72 of 2002 arises out of order of the Tribunal dated 7.1.2002 passed in ITA No.2327/All/95 for the assessment year 1992-93. 3. The assessee was a minor and his income tax return was filed through his father. For the assessment year 1992-93 the Assessing Officer made certain additions towards the interest on the deposit made by the assessee with the M/s. United Tractors. 4. The case of the assessee that in this relevant assessment year no inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a matter of fact, no interest was received by him. 10. The above explanation? has not found favour with the authorities.? The deposit was made with M/s. United Tractors and it was transferred to M/s. Rapti Property Services but no entry was made, has not been accepted by any of the authorities below. 11. In view of the fact that the assessee did receive the interest on the said deposit in the earlier assessment years, the burden clearly was upon the assessee as to why the interest was not received during the relevant assessment year. The assessee has failed to discharge the burden. 12. The learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jwala Prasad Radha Krishna V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was paid or accrued to him. 20. The authorities below after rejecting the explanation furnished by the assessee levied the penalty. 21. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a recent judgment of theApex Courtin the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Limited, AIR 2010 SC 1881, in support of his contention that as a matter of fact, the assessee has neither furnished inaccurate particulars of the income nor he has concealed the income. It is a case where the notional income was added at the hands of the assessee. 22. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that on these facts, the aforesaid penal provision is not at all attracted. 23. We have carefully considered the above su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
