- (1.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for both sides.
(2.) DURING the relevant assessment year, i.e., before the assessment year 1977 -78, there was an Explanation below Section 271(1) (c) which provided that where the declared income was less than 80 per cent. of the assessed income there was a presumption of concealment which could be rebutted by the assessee by showing absence of fraud or gross or wilful neglect in his part. For the assessment years 1970 -71 to 1975 -76, the assessee's declared income was less than the aforesaid limit of 80 per cent. of the assessed income. Accordingly, the presumption arose under the Explanation and it was required to be rebutted by the assessee.
(3.) THE assessee furnished an explanation for rebutting the presumption. With regard to such explanation the Tribunal in paragraph 16 of its order date January 21, 1982, made the following observation: The whole thing appears to be a got up story to cover up the claim of the assessee for extra investment in the business of pawning and money -lending.;