Continental Construction Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central-1 on 15 January, 1992
9.3 So far as the case law relied on by the DR in the case of MAK
Data (P.) Ltd. (supra) is concerned, the very same judgment has been
considered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs.
M/s Gem Granites (supra), observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
while considering the Explanation to section 271(1), held that the
question would be whether the assessee had offered an explanation
for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate
particulars of income and the Explanation to section 271(1) raises a
presumption of concealment, when a difference is noticed by the
assessing officer between the reported and assessed income. The
burden is then on the assessee to show otherwise, by cogent and
reliable evidence and when the initial onus placed by the explanation,
has been discharged by the assessee, the onus shifts on the Revenue
to show that the amount in question constituted their income and not
otherwise. Factually, we find that the onus cast upon the assessee
has been discharged by giving a cogent and reliable explanation.
Therefore, if the department did not agree with the explanation, then
8
ITA Nos. 1505, 1506 & 1507/H/16
Sandeep Agarwal and others
the onus was on the department to prove that there was concealment
of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.