TMI Blog1985 (10) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 70, the Income-tax Officer came to a tentative conclusion that the claim stated in Part IV of the revised return was not a genuine one. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was, therefore, issued calling upon the assessee to furnish certain information regarding his investments and expenditure in the prescribed form. Since the assessee failed to comply with this notice, the assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act. The Income-tax Officer after appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the claim of Rs. 1,16,500 was a false claim. In his view, the assessee had brought out unaccounted money by showing it as prize won in a cross-word competition. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, taxed the amount as assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 1,16,500 made by the assessee in Part IV of the return, the assessee could not be said to have concealed his income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and consequently levy of penalty under the said section was not justified ? (2) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that except for the falsity of the explanation of the assessee, it was not established by positive evidence by the Revenue that the impugned amount was income earned by the assessee during the year under reference and, therefore, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be sustained?" For the reasons which we will immediately indicate, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cting the cross-word competition were practising fraud by declaring those who desired to disclose their unaccounted money as winners without they having in fact entered the competition and successfully won the prize money. Suleman Abdul Sattar was one such person who too disclosed a sum of Rs. 46,959 in Part IV of his return as prize money received in a cross-word competition. The proceedings in that case also proceeded almost on the same lines as in the case of the assessee before us. Since the Tribunal in that case also followed its earlier decision in the case of Jogibhai, Mangalbhai , it set aside the levy of penalty imposed on the premise that the assessee was not guilty of concealment of income and of furnishing inaccurate and false p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and we, therefore, dispose of the application accordingly. It will be seen from the above that the facts in Suleman Abdul Sattar's case [1983] 139 ITR 8 (Guj) and the facts of this case are by and large identical. In the present case also, the authorities have come to the conclusion that the assessee's version that he secured a prize in cross-word competition was palpably false. Since the assessee admitted the fact that he had earned income during the said assessment year by showing the same in Part IV of the Return, the authorities below were justified in bringing the same to tax as income derived from an undisclosed source. Under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Act (as it then stood) where the total income returned by any pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
