1971 (8) TMI 50

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntries. The assessee stated that he was not in a position to prove the genuineness of these entries and made a statement "surrendering squared up account of Rs. 12,000 in the name of Romesh Trading Company". The assessee was then assessed to an income of Rs. 65,046 as against the returned income of Rs. 46,446. The income assessed included the amount of Rs. 12,000. The assessment was followed by proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and a penalty of Rs. 6,768 at 50 per cent. of the tax sought to be evaded was levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. Against his decision an appeal was taken to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal maintained the order levying the penalty but reduced the quantum to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ic nature particularly when the Tribunal did not rely on the explanation in support of the order upholding the levy of penalty by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. This, therefore, leaves the question that is the subject-matter of Income- tax Reference No. 30 of 1970. So far as this question is concerned it appears to us that the answer to this question is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anwar Ali. The facts of the Supreme Court decision are almost in pari materia with the facts of the present case. The only distinction that the learned counsel for the department could urge was that in the Supreme Court case the assessee's case was that he had received the amounts from his relations becaus .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... genuineness of this credit. It was stated by the assessee that he was not in a position to prove the genuineness of this credit. The same is being added back as income from other sources of the assessee." The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on appeal in his order under section 271(1) read with section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, observed as follows : " From the above discussion it is very clear that the assessee on one pretext or the other was avoiding or postponing the levy of the penalty. As already mentioned above it concealed the fact before the Income-tax officer when Shri Bhatia gave it in writing on 7th February, 1967, that there was no paid up or cash credit account in the books of accounts which was subsequently found .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X