COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. N. NAGARAJ BALLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 472/Bang/2001 on the following substantial questions of law : "(1) Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that the Revenue has to prove concealment of income when it was found that a sum of Rs. 11,63,860 which was claimed to be the income during the asst. yr. 1993 -94 was actually the income of the current asst. yr. 1992 -93 and since the assessee had not offered any bona fide explanation which was truthful the concealment was deemed to have arisen ? (2) Whether a sum of Rs. 11,63,860 shown by the assessee as the income for the asst. yr. 1993 -94 admittedly did not find a place in the returns filed during the asst. yr. 1993 -94 was correctly brought to tax during the asst. yr. 1992 -93 and the explanation offered was found to be false, the penalty levied was fully justified .

(2.) We have heard Sri K.V. Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the appellant -Revenue and Sri S.P. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent -assessee. law formulated as above have been framed.

(3.) Sri K.V. Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Revenue would contend that amount of Rs. 11,63,860 received by the assessee during the asst. yr. 1992 -93 and also an amount of Rs. 3,19,698 correspondingly shown as expenses pertaining to the same assessment year was not reflected in the return of income filed for the said year and subsequently, for the asst. yr. 1993 -94 the same has been added back and to the said extent it has been reflected in the statement of account.