Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 437 - HC - Income TaxIncome from under invoicing in respect of export transactions - unaccounted business and hundi loans - Held that:- Official Liquidator has filed written statement along with pursis as Exh. A. The said written statement is prepared by Chartered Accountant assisting the Official Liquidator. The parties do not dispute that income of ₹ 1.71 crore was included in the income of R.B.S.D. Export firm from the Assessment years 1950-51 to 1958-59. As the other assessee is not party before us and addition of amount of ₹ 1,70,90,669/to the income of Export firm and its assessment accordingly is not in dispute. We accordingly answer Question in the affirmative. Double taxation - whether Tribunal was justified in law in sustaining the addition of ₹ 1.71 crores (Rs. One crore Seventy one lacs only) as the income of assessee from under invoicing in respect of export transactions ? - Held that:- The amount which has gone to Export firm actually belonged to assessee i.e. Private Limited company. It has concealed that income and clandestinely made it over to export firm. Thus, its ownership over said amount of ₹ 1.71 Crore is not in dispute. The amount really belonged to it and, therefore, it was and is answerable and has to pay tax on it. It cannot be permitted to urge that as Export firm has paid tax on that amount, the same cannot be demanded from it. The mischief of assessee Private Limited company has been detected and it cannot be permitted to take any advantage of it. If this argument of assessee Private Limited company is accepted, it is nothing but allowing it to reap benefit of mischief played by it. If on account of its own mischief, it has sustained any loss, it cannot make a grievance for the same. However, it is settled that it cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong. The revenue has corrected the wrong and has also demanded tax from the assessee Private Limited company to whom that income really belonged. Thus, the Export firm has to pay tax as it has actually utilized that amount as its income while the Private Limited Company (assessee) has to pay tax as it attempted to conceal that income. The income really belongs to it and it was and is answerable to pay tax upon it. In this situation, we find that the concept of double taxation is not attracted in the present matter. Tribunal was justified in sustaining addition of ₹ 1.71 Crore as income of the assessee. - Decided against assessee.
|