TMI Blog1989 (3) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to be set aside ?" The assessment year involved is the assessment year 1968-69 for which the previous year ended on October 31, 1967. The facts of the case found by the Tribunal have been stated as under : The assessee filed his return on June 3, 1968, declaring a total income of Rs. 23,576. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Incometax Officer enquired of the assessee the nature and source of Rs. 25,000 being a loan alleged to have been taken by the assessee in the name of Eastern Industries Corporation. The Income-tax Officer treated Rs. 25,000 as the assessee's income from business in his order of March 14, 1972, the relevant portion of which reads as under : "Sri N. C. Khasnabia, Advocate, appears and submits that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entioned in para 5 of the order of the Tribunal under reference. The Tribunal, after considering the rival submissions of the parties, upheld the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposing penalty of Rs. 32,500 under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. So far as the first question is concerned, nothing has been shown to suggest that the Tribunal had failed to deal with any contention raised by the applicant. It has not been shown, as to how it can be said that no proper opportunity of being heard was given by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. On the contrary, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has recorded in his order that a notice of hearing was given. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee. But a letter was filed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concealed income. There may be a hundred and one reasons for such admission, i.e., when the assessee realises the true position, it does not dispute certain disallowances. But that does not absolve the Revenue from proving mens rea in a quasi-criminal offence. In the instant case, nothing more has happened than what was stated by the Supreme Court. The assessee had agreed to the inclusion of a certain amount as its income in the assessment proceedings but nothing else was produced by the Department to show that the amount was really the concealed income of the assessee. Penalty cannot be imposed merely on suspicion. Under the circumstances, the first question is answered in the following manner: (1) There is no evidence to show that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
