Topics

a search and seizure under the said Act has to be carried out in the presence of at least two respectable inhabitants of the locality where the search and seizure is conducted. These respectable inhabitants are witnesses to the search and seizure and are known as ¨Dpanchas¡¬. The documentation of what they witness is known as the panchnama. The word ‗nama', refers to a written document. Its type is usually determined by the word which is combined with it as a suffix. Examples being, nikah-nama (the written muslim marriage contract), hiba-nama (gift deed, the word hiba ITA No. 1198/2008 Page No.14 of 28 meaning - gift), wasiyat-nama (written will) and so on. So a panchnama is a written record of what the panch has witnessed. In Mohan Lal v. Emperor: AIR 1941 Bombay 149, it was observed that ¨D[t]he panchnama is merely a record of what a panch sees..¡¬ Similarly, the Gujarat High Court in the case of Valibhai Omarji v. The State: AIR 1963 Guj 145 noted that ¨D[a] Panchanama is essentially a document recording certain things which occur in the presence of Panchas and which are seen and heard by them.¡¬ Again in The State of Maharashtra v. Kacharadas D. Bhalgar: (1978) 80 BomLR 396, a panchnama was stated to be ¨Da memorandum of what happens in the presence of the panchas as seen by them and of what they hear¡¬./

Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi ... vs Shri S.K. Katyal on 12 November, 2008
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
1. This appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‗the said Act') is directed against the order dated 14.11.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in IT (SS) A No.302/Del/04 pertaining to the block period 01.04.1990 to 17.11.2000. The appellant/revenue is aggrieved by the fact that the ITA No. 1198/2008 Page No.1 of 28 Tribunal held the block assessment order to be beyond the time specified under section 158BE(1)(b) of the said Act.
http://www.lawweb.in/2012/05/meaning-of-word-panchnama.html

It is the assessee who is in full possession of facts regarding the true character of the amounts and the sources from which they v/ere derived and Section 106 of the Evidence Act casts on him the burden of proving what lies within his special knowledge.

S. Kumaraswami Reddiar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 20 March, 1959
take a look at judgement here : http://www.lawweb.in/2012/03/burden-of-proof-is-on-assessee-to-prove.html

Burden of proof is on income tax department to prove that amount standing in the name of wife is belonging to assessee
Where an amount stood in the name of the assessee's wife, the onus of proof was not on the assessee but was on the Income-tax Department to show by, at least, same materials that the amount did not belong to the assessee's wife but to the assessee himself.

Mangilal Rungta vs Commr. Of Income-Tax on 4 March, 1955
Equivalent citations: AIR 1955 Pat 366, 1955 (3) BLJR 263
Author: K Sahai
Bench: Ramaswami, K Sahai
take a look on judgement here :http://www.lawweb.in/2012/03/burden-of-proof-is-on-income-tax.html

Burden of proof is on income tax department that assessee has concealed his income
The gist of the offence under s. 28(1)(c) is that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, and therefore, the department must establish that the receipt of the amount in dispute constitutes income of the assessee. If there is no evidence on the record except the explanation has been found to be false, if does not follow that the receipt constitutes his taxable income.
Supreme Court of India

Commissioner Of Income Tax West ... vs Anwar Ali on 29 April, 1970
Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 1782, 1971 SCR (1) 446
Bench: Grover, A.N.
CITATION:
1970 AIR 1782 1971 SCR (1) 446
1970 SCC (2) 185
ACT:
Income-tax Act (11 of 1922), s. 28-Penalty proceedings- Whether of a criminal nature-Onus on department show amount concealed as income.

take a look at judgement : http://www.lawweb.in/2012/03/burden-of-proof-is-on-income-tax_30.html

Radheshyam G. Garg vs Safiyabai Ibrahim Lightwalla on 19 January, 1987
Equivalent citations: AIR 1988 Bom 361, 1987 (3) BomCR 459
Bench: A Agarwal
ORDER
1. This petition has been filed by the original defendant tenant seeking to challenge the judgments and decrees of of both the lower Courts decreeing the suit of the respondent-plaintiff for possession under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Rent Act").
2. The premises which are subject matter of the dispute in the present petition consists of one room in Ever Ready Cottage situate at Virar, taluka Vasai, District Thane. The said premises were let to the defendant in the year 1958 at a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-. The said premises originally belonged to one Asmabai who on 1st Aug., 1975 executed a registered sale deed in favour of her three daughters, who were plaintiffs in the suit for possession. The present suit came to be filed on 2nd Oct., 1975 by the plaintiffs, the daughters of said Asmabai, after they had given to the defendant their notice of attornment dated 21st August 1975 wherein they had informed the defendant that the premises had been transferred by Asmabai in their favour by a registered document. The said notice alleged that the defendant had acquired alternate suitable residence inasmuch as he had been allotted railway quarters at Andheri and he had shifted as far back as in Jan. 1965. It was also alleged that the defendant had unlawfully sub-let the suit premises.

Read more here : http://www.lawweb.in/2012/03/extract-of-bank-account-signed-by-agent.html