Nathu Ram, A.M. - (1.) THE appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1984-85 confirming the penalty levied at Rs. 2,12,834 under s. 271(1)(c).
(2.) The facts in brief are that the assessee filed a return for the asst. yr. 1984-85 declaring total income at Rs. 37,510 on 30th June, 1984. The assessee derived income from the share of profit from the firms M/s Vijay Corpn., Vijay Kumar Nilesh Kumar and Nilesh Kumar Mohanlal and also income from other sources. The income declared was accepted by the AO under s. 143(1) on 21st January, 1987. There was a search in the case of her husband Shri Ratilal H. Shah at their residence on 6th November, 1985 and during the course of search there was found and seized among others one telephone-cum-address diary containing 1 to 53 pages. Page No. 53 of the diary was written in Gujarati and its verbatim translation in English is as under : "S.Y. 2039 Sravan-sud-5 and Saturday dt. 13th August, 1983 (August), the first floor of the house property at Athugar Street Nanpura, Surat admeasuring about 1512 sq. ft. purchased from Shri Jagdish Bhai for Rs. 3,76,121. An agreement to sale dt. 7th October, 1983." As per the entires so made in the diary the assessee purchased a house property from Shri Jagdish Bhai for a consideration of Rs. 3,76,121 but its value in her balance sheet as well as in wealth tax return for the asst. yr. 1985-86 was shown at Rs. 1,90,221. There was thus found a difference of Rs. 1,85,000.
(3.) DURING the course of search in the statement recorded under s. 132(4) the assessee failed to give necessary details about the property purchased and the party from whom it was purchased. She however admitted the ownership of the property and claimed to have shown it in her records. Shri Ratilal, husband of the assessee in the statement recorded under s. 132(4) claimed that the diary belonged to him but he also showed ignorance about the said entry made in the diary about the purchase of the property. The said entry was also not found to be recorded either in the hands of the assessee or in the hands of her husband Shri Ratilal. It is also mentioned here that the Department during the course of search also seized certain valuables from her husband and in the order passed under s. 132(5) in the case of her husband Shri Ratilal on 4th March, 1986. The difference of Rs. 1,85,900 paid in the purchase of the said property was held as representing the unexplained investment of her husband Shri Ratilal since the assessee did not have full information about the purchase of the property.;