TMI Blog1964 (8) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of the penalty was justified in law? The facts as they appear from the statement are these. The assessee is a registered firm consisting of three partners, one being Haji Abdul Qayum. It submitted a return of its income for the assessment year 1948-49 ; during the assessment proceedings the Income-tax Officer came across an entry of ₹ 76,047-8-0 in the personal account of Haji Abdul Qayum, partner. The assessee was called upon to explain how this amount was deposited in the personal account of the partner and the explanation offered was that he and nine other persons had an intention of migrating to Pakistan, that they wanted a bank draft to be sent to Pakistan, that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... false version to establish the receipts of these sums from other parties, the Income-tax Officer was perfectly entitled to presume these credits to be revenue receipts of the appellant from some undisclosed sources. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Then proceedings under section 28(1)(c) were started against the assessee. The assessee appeared and simply repeated the explanation offered in the assessment proceedings for the entry of ₹ 76,000 and odd. It did not produce any further material before the assessing authority. The assessing authority then passed an order imposing a penalty of ₹ 10,000 under section 28(1)(c) observing : The only natural inference in the circumstances was th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also not called upon to appraise its value through question No. 1. All that we are called upon to answer is whether there was any material that could sustain the finding of concealment of income and our answer must clearly be in the affirmative. It was not disputed that a finding reached in the assessment proceedings about a certain receipt being income is a relevant fact and once it is admitted the question stands answered. Our answer to question No 1 is, therefore, in the affirmative. Question No. 2 is hardly a question of law. If there was material which could justify the finding of concealment of income, whether the finding should be recorded or not on the basis of that material becomes a question for the discretion of the Tribunal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity could record the finding of concealment. Another question was that it was not proved that the concealment was deliberate but section 28(1)(c) does not require the concealment to be deliberate. There is difference between concealing income and giving inaccurate particulars of income and it is only in the latter case that the element of deliberateness is required. Concealment is proved when it is proved that there was income and that it was not disclosed in the return as in the instant case. Sri S.D. Agarwal relied upon Hariram Sail v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1955] 28 ITR 231, but the facts in that case were essentially different from those of the instant case. There accounts were maintained by the father of Hari Ram and karta of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
