TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... went into the purchase of the car. The finding of the Tribunal that the amount which was in excess of Rs. 31,000 involved a factor of estimate, on the basis of lack of evidence, cannot be said to be a perverse or unreasonable finding. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. - - - - - Dated:- 23-1-2003 - Judge(s) : R. K. ABICHANDANI., A. L. DAVE. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by R. K. ABICHANDANI J. -The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench "C", has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 256(l) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in confirmin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was imposed on the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), before whom that order was challenged, decided, by his order dated January 2, 1984, that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be imposed on the assessee because the Income-tax Officer had not discharged the onus on him to show that, in the investment in the car, in the year of account, the assessee's income of the year, which he had concealed, was involved. It was observed that, in the wealth-tax records of the assessee, he had returned a cash on hand of Rs. 75,000 and that he was assessed to wealth-tax exceeding Rs. 11,00,000. The Commissioner observed that, whether the investment in the car would reflect any concealed income of the assessee in the year, bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and that, if at all, there could be said to be some dispute, it could be in relation to the amount in excess of Rs. 31,000, which involved a factor of estimate on the basis of evidence. The penalty was, therefore, upheld only in respect of Rs. 31,000 for concealment of income and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was modified accordingly. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue argued that the Explanation to clause (c) of section 271(1) was attracted in this case and the entire amount of Rs. 56,000, being the price of the car purchased, should be treated to have been an income deemed to have been concealed under the Explanation. It was submitted that, once a presumption arose under the Explanation, the minimum penalty of 100 per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
