TMI Blog1971 (8) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d cash deposits of Rs. 12,000 appearing in the name of Messrs. Romesh Trading Company in the books of the assessee. The assessee was asked to prove the genuineness of these cash credit entries. 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 Inspect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The learned counsel for the assessee while arguing Income-tax Case No. 2 of 1971 did not press for reference of the first question and conceded that the second question was only (if an academic 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. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xamination of cash books it was found that there was a credit of Rs. 12,000 which was squared on March 28, 1964, in the name of Messrs. Romesh Trading Company. The assessee was asked to prove the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
