TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imum extent on the basis as found in para 3 of the order passed for asst. yr. 1970-71, the same is reproduced below: "As discussed earlier, the assessee during the proceedings under s. 143(3) while finalising the assessment has mentioned and agreed before the CIT for making the payments of the determined taxes in connection with proceedings initiated for the completion of the reopened assessments, I am convinced that in the absence of any defence, the assessee has admitted the default for the concealment of income to the extent mentioned above i.e. Rs. 9,000 and as the concealment of income has been determined on the basis of the information gathered during the operation under s. 132 of the IT Act, It is confirmed that the assessee has c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of CIT vs. Vinay Chandra Harilal (1979) 8 CTR (Guj) 247 : (1979) 120 ITR 752 (Guj) it was submitted that facts were distinguishable mainly on the aspect that there was no raid, there was no collection of evidence by the Revenue and no statement accepting benami nature and further that the case was concerned with the peak amount required to be added. The assessee again did not avail of the opportunity granted by the Revenue before levying the penalty. 4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee highlighted the factual aspect by bringing to our notice the initial notice issued by the Revenue under s. 132(5) of the Act proposing to make an addition of Rs. 12,00,000 approximately out of which about Rs. 7 lakhs were for unexplained inves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under consideration. In reply, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the proposed quantum and the ultimate addition made is irrelevant for the purpose of levy of penalty for concealment. One query from the Bench it was submitted that the settlement petition was dt. 19th March, 1979 and the assessments were completed in April, 1980. 4.1 During the course of submissions we had asked for the copies of the statement on oath settlement petition and assessment order and the same were submitted to us after the hearing was over. On going through the assessment order we find that the additions were made in various years on the basis recorded in para 5 of the order, the relevant portion is reproduced here. "Even considering this, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iring application to the facts of the case under consideration are (i) the Revenue must establish that the receipt of the amount in question constituted the income of the assessee, (ii) addition made under s. 69A does not discharge the Revenue from the burden of proving that the addition represented the income of the particular financial year, (ii) admission of the assessee did not mean that the assessee admitted the addition to be his income from business in the particular year in question, and (iv) the Revenue has not established that the accretion to the net wealth of the assessee during the relevant year under consideration was out of income of the year under consideration. 4.3. On a query from the Bench, the ld. Departmental Represe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
