B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, C.J. - (1.) UNDER Section 256(1) of the Act, the Tribunal has referred the following two questions : '1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and was liable to penalty for concealment of income ?
(2.) WHETHER , on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee was liable for penalty for default in the original return, he having filed a revised return ?' 2. The assessee, an individual, carries on business in printing powerloom cloth of cheaper varieties and sarees. For the assessment year 1971 -72, the concerned year, he filed the return on May 25, 1971, disclosing an income of Rs. 21,400. He estimated his sales turnover at Rs. 4 lakhs whereon he disclosed a gross profit of 9%. He claimed a sum of Rs. 14,600 by way of expenses. Notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) were issued to him. Thereupon, he filed a revised return. On this occasion, the assesseedisclosed the income from business at Rs. 33,000 and from property at Rs. 100. He estimated sales turnover at Rs. 11 and assessed the net profit at 3%. His case was that he did not maintain any accounts. The Income -tax Officer, however, did not accept the estimate. He estimated the sales turnover at Rs. 12,40,000 and determined the net income at Rs. 80,600. The assessee's appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal proved unsuccessful.
(3.) THE Income -tax Officer initiated proceedings for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) inasmuch as the returned income was less than 80% of the assessed income and the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c), which was then in force, was attracted. It meant that the burden of proving that concealment was not wilful shifted to the assessee.;