|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 111 Records
-
1968 (8) TMI 51
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 4(ii) of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957.
2. Definition and scope of "dependant" under Section 2(g)(i) of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957.
3. Interpretation of amendments made by Act 12 of 1959 to the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Section 4(ii) of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957:
The primary question for consideration was whether the inclusion of the expenditure incurred by the assessee's wife and minor son with that of the assessee was justified under Section 4(ii) of the Expenditure-tax Act. The Tribunal had previously concluded that neither Section 4(i) nor Section 4(ii) was applicable. The court noted that the answer to this question would depend on the interpretation of the scope of Section 2(g)(i).
2. Definition and Scope of "Dependant" under Section 2(g)(i) of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957:
The court examined the definition of "dependant" under Section 2(g)(i), which was amended by Act 12 of 1959. Initially, "dependant" meant the spouse or child wholly or mainly dependent on the assessee for support and maintenance. The amendment expanded this definition to include any person who is factually dependent on the individual for support and maintenance. The court emphasized that the term "dependant" should bear its natural meaning, which does not include someone who is independent and does not require assistance for support and maintenance.
3. Interpretation of Amendments Made by Act 12 of 1959 to the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957:
The court analyzed the amendments made by Act 12 of 1959, which inserted the words "and includes any person" between "child" and "wholly" and prefixed the word "minor" to the word "child." The court concluded that the amendment did not intend to include an independent spouse or minor child as a dependant. The court agreed with the reasoning in Rajakumarsinghji v. Commissioner of Expenditure-tax, which delimited the scope and effect of Section 2(g)(i) as amended. The court also noted that the definition of "dependant" should be interpreted in a manner that does not lead to unjustifiable discrimination between the spouse or minor child of an individual and that of a coparcener in a Hindu undivided family.
The court rejected the contention that the amendment aimed to treat the husband, wife, and minor child as one unit for the exemption limit of Rs. 30,000 in the matter of non-taxable expenditure. The court emphasized that the individual is always the assessee or the Hindu undivided family, and the dependant's expenditure is included in certain circumstances for assessment purposes.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the inclusion of the expenditure incurred by the assessee's wife and minor son with that of the assessee was not justified under Section 4(ii) of the Expenditure-tax Act. The court answered the question referred to it against the revenue, with costs awarded to the assessee.
-
1968 (8) TMI 50
Service of notice - Assessee has not been given an opportunity of being heard inasmuch as she was not served with any notice of hearing of these matters. Expiry of 2 years from order sought to be revised - Tribunal was right in holding that the notices to show cause u/s 33B of the IT Act, 1922, and section 263 of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yrs. 1960-61 and 1961-62 were not validly served
-
1968 (8) TMI 49
Assessee owning a rubber plantation - under an agreement, assessee sold all the rubber trees - assessee contend that, even assuming that the amount received by the assessee partly represented the consideration for slaughter tapping of the trees, it did not constitute income - whether tribunal right in holding that there is nothing in the agreement to show that it was a composite agreement of lease and sale
-
1968 (8) TMI 48
Issues Involved:
1. Construction of Section 164 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Assessment of income in the hands of trustees versus direct assessment on beneficiaries.
3. Determination of the rate applicable for tax on trustees' income.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Construction of Section 164 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The core issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 164 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This section addresses the taxability of income in the hands of trustees when the individual shares of beneficiaries are indeterminate or unknown. The judgment clarifies that when income is not specifically receivable by the representative-assessee for the benefit of a single beneficiary, or when the beneficiaries' shares are indeterminate, tax should be charged as if such income were the total income of an association of persons.
2. Assessment of Income in the Hands of Trustees Versus Direct Assessment on Beneficiaries:
The judgment underscores the dual modes of assessment available to the revenue: either to assess the trustees in their representative capacity or to directly assess the beneficiaries. In this case, the Income-tax Officer chose to directly assess Kalpana for the sum of Rs. 3,000 received by her, thereby excluding this amount from the trustees' total income. The judgment affirms that once the income is taxed in the hands of the beneficiary, it cannot be taxed again in the hands of the trustees. This principle is supported by Section 166, which allows for direct assessment of the beneficiary without preventing the assessment of the trustee.
3. Determination of the Rate Applicable for Tax on Trustees' Income:
The crux of the dispute was the rate at which the remaining income of Rs. 3,977 should be taxed in the hands of the trustees. The Tribunal had ruled that the rate applicable should be based on the total income of Rs. 6,977, including the Rs. 3,000 already taxed in Kalpana's hands. The judgment, however, refutes this, stating that exclusion from chargeability to tax should also mean exclusion from the total income for determining the tax rate. The judgment cites the principle that the revenue cannot "seek to assess the one income twice," and concludes that the rate applicable should be based on the total income of Rs. 3,977, not Rs. 6,977.
Conclusion:
The judgment concludes that the rate at which tax was liable to be charged to the trustees should be the rate applicable to a total income of Rs. 3,977. The Tribunal's decision to apply the rate based on Rs. 6,977 was erroneous. The Commissioner was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
-
1968 (8) TMI 47
Issues:
1. Whether the appeals were rightly dismissed as barred by time.
2. Whether the appeals were filed in the correct form and within the prescribed time limits.
3. Whether the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeals as barred by limitation was justified.
4. Whether the Tribunal followed the correct procedure in handling the appeals.
Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Madras addressed the issue of whether the appeals were rightly dismissed as barred by time. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had made a common order for the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61, with the last date for filing the appeals being December 14, 1962. Only one appeal was filed on that date, which was initially treated as for 1959-60. The Tribunal requested a separate appeal for 1960-61, which was filed on December 18, 1962, and received on December 21, 1962. Despite some procedural issues with the form of the appeals, they were eventually sent to the Tribunal in the old form on January 7, 1963, and received on January 10, 1963. The Tribunal ultimately dismissed the appeals as barred by limitation, citing a lack of satisfactory reasons for condoning the delay.
Regarding the form of the appeals, the High Court found that there was no substantial difference between the old and new forms, with the new form requiring more information. The appeal presented in the new form for the first year contained all necessary particulars, and there was no valid reason for its return or for not admitting it on time. For the second appeal, it was noted that there was no negligence on the part of the department, as the Income-tax Officer promptly responded to the defect once it was brought to their attention. The Tribunal's failure to reject the appeal or prescribe a time for amendment under Rule 13 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules was also highlighted. The High Court concluded that there was sufficient cause for the delay, which the Tribunal should have considered instead of simply stating there were no reasons for the delay.
Additionally, there was a debate on the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal under section 33(2A) regarding the condonation of appeals presented out of time. The judgment did not delve into this issue extensively based on the specific facts of the case and the framed question. The High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the revenue, directing the Tribunal to consider the appeals as admitted and proceed with their disposal in accordance with the law, emphasizing that the Tribunal should have taken note of the sufficient cause for the delay in this case.
-
1968 (8) TMI 46
Three trust deeds executed by the assessee's father for the benefit of the assessee, his wife, and his children and grand-children - Whether Tribunal was right in taking the view that the assessee was not directly assessable in respect of the income of the three trusts - Held, yes
-
1968 (8) TMI 45
Issues: Tax liability of a ruler of a sovereign state for personal income earned in British India under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
Analysis:
The case involved the tax liability of an assessee, who was the ruler of the erstwhile Faridkot State, for the profit earned from the sale of Government of India securities in British India during the assessment years 1946-47 and 1947-48. The Income-tax Officer assessed the profit under section 12B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, rejecting the assessee's objection that as a sovereign ruler, he was immune from taxation. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Judicial Member of the Tribunal held differing views on the matter, leading to the President of the Tribunal siding with the Judicial Member based on a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The department appealed to the High Court under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, seeking a decision on the question of law posed by the Tribunal.
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. H. E. H. Mir Osman Ali Bahadur, where it was held that the private income of a ruler earned in British India was not exempt from taxation under the Indian Income-tax Act, even if the ruler was a sovereign. The Court emphasized that the distinction between income of the ruler as representing the State and personal income of the ruler was crucial. The argument that the assessments predated the Constitution of India was dismissed, as the Supreme Court had clarified that the Act's provisions applied retroactively. The Court noted that prior decisions had distinguished between income from State-owned properties and personal properties of a ruler, with no exemption for personal income earned in British India.
The Court rejected the contention that the sovereign status of the assessee could only be determined by the Ministry of Home Affairs, citing the Supreme Court's definitive ruling in the Mir Osman Ali Bahadur case. Given the precedent set by the Supreme Court and the lack of exemption for personal income earned in British India, the High Court answered the question in the negative, ruling in favor of the department. The Court acknowledged a previous decision in favor of the assessee by the Andhra Pradesh High Court but made no order as to costs.
In conclusion, the High Court upheld the tax liability of the ruler for personal income earned in British India under the Indian Income-tax Act, based on the Supreme Court's precedent and the distinction between State-owned and personal properties of the ruler.
-
1968 (8) TMI 44
Assessee who owned power looms permitted by an agreement, another person to use the power looms - user of the machinery was to pay the assessee a fixed sum by way of share of the net profits - said sum was not a payment of lease and hence, was taxable under the head 'Income from Business' and not under the head 'Income from Other Sources'
-
1968 (8) TMI 43
Assessee owned two houses, both of which were self occupied. The assessee claimed a reduction in the annual value in respect of these houses - allowability of claim - further, any income of a trust which is received for the benefit of the wife or the minor child is to be included in the total income of the assessee
-
1968 (8) TMI 42
Income Tax Officer rejected the accounts - Method of accounting, having been accepted in the earlier years and the income, having been computed in the same manner as in the earlier years, there is no reason why the same should be rejected in the current year
-
1968 (8) TMI 41
Issues:
Interpretation of section 10(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 regarding deduction of interest payment to a partner. Determination of whether interest payment by a firm to one of its partners is a permissible deduction. Analysis of whether payments made by the assessee by way of interest to a partner were in his capacity as a partner or as the proprietor of another business. Determination of whether borrowings made by another business on behalf of the assessee qualify for deduction.
Analysis:
The High Court of Kerala addressed a reference under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 concerning the assessment year 1959-60. The issue revolved around the correctness of allowing interest payment of Rs. 66,644 by the assessee-firm to one of its partners, S. Veeriah Reddiar. The firm conducted textile business in Alleppey, with a partner who was previously the sole proprietor of a losing concern in Bombay. The interest payment in question was related to borrowings made by the partner for purchasing goods for the assessee. The Income-tax Officer initially disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee, leading to subsequent appeals and a remand to investigate the relationship between the businesses.
The court examined the provisions of section 10(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act, which restricts allowances for payments of interest, salary, commission, or remuneration made by a firm to any partner. The assessee contended that the interest payments were made by the partner in his capacity as the proprietor of the Bombay concern, not as a partner of the firm, thus not falling under the purview of section 10(4)(b). However, the court relied on precedent to emphasize that the provision does not distinguish between payments made to a partner in different capacities, affirming that the restriction applies broadly to all such payments.
Furthermore, the court rejected the argument that the borrowings made in Bombay, for which interest was paid, were on behalf of the assessee. It was established that the Bombay concern operated independently and ceased to be part of the assessee's business. There was no evidence indicating authorization for the Bombay concern to borrow on behalf of the assessee. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the department, denying the deduction claimed by the assessee. The judgment emphasized adherence to the clear language of the tax law without room for interpretation or implication, ultimately upholding the disallowance of the interest payment deduction.
In conclusion, the High Court of Kerala decided against the assessee, holding that the interest payment to a partner was not a permissible deduction under section 10(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The judgment underscored the strict application of tax laws without room for interpretation beyond the explicit provisions. The court's decision was based on the lack of authorization for borrowings made by another business on behalf of the assessee, leading to the denial of the deduction claimed by the firm.
-
1968 (8) TMI 40
Madras Estates Abolition Act - income-tax arrears and of penalty - appellant in the appeals is the Union of India who is creditor in respect of tax, any penalty, both interim and final - disallowed the claim of the Union as against interim payments - petition is allowed
-
1968 (8) TMI 39
Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 - assessee showed income by way of rent of building occupied by some of his employees and claimed depreciation and repairs thereon - plantations of assessee had not reached the stage of production - assessee had several houses and showed income only on letting out a few of such houses - Whether depreciation and repairs for all houses is allowable - Held, yes
-
1968 (8) TMI 38
Issues:
Whether the sum paid as lease money was rightly disallowed as capital expenditure?
Analysis:
The case involved the disallowance of Rs. 5,934 paid as lease money by the assessee for extracting earth for brick manufacturing. The Income-tax Officer initially allowed one-tenth of the claim as revenue expense but disallowed the balance. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner deemed the entire expenditure as capital in nature. The assessee then approached the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which upheld the decision. The main contention was whether the lease expenditure was revenue or capital in nature.
The lease agreement allowed the assessee to extract earth for brick manufacturing or cultivation for 10 years, after which the land would revert to the owner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner considered the entire expenditure as capital, contrary to the Income-tax Officer's decision to allow a portion as revenue expense. The Tribunal affirmed the capital nature of the expenditure.
The legal arguments revolved around whether the lease acquisition constituted an enduring asset or a revenue expense. The assessee's counsel relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Pingle Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, emphasizing that the expenditure was for acquiring raw material and, therefore, revenue in nature. The department's counsel contended that the lease was a capital asset due to its enduring nature, citing the lease's agricultural purposes.
The High Court, after analyzing the Supreme Court's precedents and the specific facts of the case, concluded that the expenditure on the lease was a revenue expense. The Court highlighted that the lease was solely for obtaining raw material for brick manufacturing, aligning with the revenue expenditure criteria outlined in the Pingle Industries case. The Court rejected the department's attempt to introduce a new argument regarding the lease's agricultural purposes, as it was not raised at earlier stages of the proceedings.
In light of the above analysis, the Court answered the question in the negative, affirming that the sum paid as lease money was a revenue expenditure and not capital in nature. No costs were awarded in the judgment.
-
1968 (8) TMI 37
Issues Involved:
1. Whether income had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 34.
2. Whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could give a direction under section 34(3) to take action against the assessee.
3. Applicability of the second proviso to section 34(3) for the assessment years 1945-46 to 1951-52.
4. Validity of assessments for the years 1945-46 to 1951-52 based on sections 31 and 34.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Whether income had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 34.
The court examined whether the income had escaped assessment when the Income-tax Officer did not act on the returns filed by Mohd. Shakoor and Mohd. Bashir. The Tribunal had held that since the period of limitation for making the assessment had expired, the Income-tax Officer could not act on the voluntary returns, thereby causing the income to escape assessment. The court affirmed this view, stating that income could escape assessment due to various reasons, including the Income-tax Officer erroneously treating the income as belonging to another assessee or failing to act on a return within the limitation period. Thus, the first question was answered in the affirmative.
Issue 2: Whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could give a direction under section 34(3) to take action against the assessee.
The court considered the applicability of the second proviso to section 34(3), which allows reassessment beyond the limitation period to give effect to any finding or direction in an appellate order. The court noted that the association of persons, Allah Bux and Zahur Bux, was distinct from the assessee, Mohd. Shakoor and Mohd. Bashir. Citing the Supreme Court's interpretation in Murlidhar Bhagwan Das, the court held that the second proviso to section 34(3) applies only to persons intimately connected with the assessment under appeal. Since the assessee was not connected in this manner, the second proviso was not applicable, and the notices under section 34(1) were barred by limitation. Thus, the second question was answered in the negative.
Issue 3: Applicability of the second proviso to section 34(3) for the assessment years 1945-46 to 1951-52.
Given the court's negative answer to the second question, it deemed it unnecessary to address the third question regarding the applicability of the second proviso to section 34(3) for the specified assessment years.
Issue 4: Validity of assessments for the years 1945-46 to 1951-52 based on sections 31 and 34.
Similarly, due to the resolution of the second question, the court found it unnecessary to express an opinion on the fourth question concerning the validity of the assessments for the years 1945-46 to 1951-52.
Conclusion:
The court provided the following answers to the questions referred:
1. Affirmative.
2. Negative.
3. Not answered.
4. Not answered.
The court directed the parties to bear their own costs and assessed the counsel's fee at Rs. 200.
-
1968 (8) TMI 36
Act of 1961 - Act of 1922 - Notice issued u/s 148 - time limit - held that if the right of the respondents to reassess the petitioner for the year 1948-49 became barred by time under the 1922 Act, such a proceeding cannot be initiated under the 1961 Act
-
1968 (8) TMI 35
Assessee public limited company owns a five star luxury hotel - expenditure on linen and blankets and expenditure on the uniforms expenditure incurred on the initial issue of linen, blankets and uniforms was expenditure on the initial equipment of the income earning apparatus and was therefore, not a permissible deduction u/s 10(2)(xv)
-
1968 (8) TMI 34
Issues:
Whether the managing agency remuneration for a specific period was deductible in the computation of income for the assessment year 1959-60.
Analysis:
The case involved a public limited company with managing agents, where the managing agency remuneration for a certain period was in question. The company credited sums to the managing agents based on proposed new agreements, which were disclosed in the returns. However, the company added back these sums in the computation of taxable income. Subsequently, the company applied for approval of revised terms for the managing agents, which was granted with retrospective effect. The company then claimed a deduction for the total sum of managing agency remuneration for the relevant periods. The Tribunal held that the liability to pay the sum was ascertained when the debits were made, and the company could not claim the deduction in the assessment year if it failed to do so earlier.
The company argued that the liability to pay remuneration only accrued upon government approval, which had retrospective effect. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the managing agency continued to function, and there was an understanding between the parties regarding the new terms of remuneration. The approval merely gave legal effect to the existing arrangements. The court emphasized that the refusal of the deduction was justified in this case.
The court also examined provisions of the Companies Act cited by the company but found little support for its argument. Additionally, the court distinguished cases related to bonus awards, stating that the principles applied to bonus settlements differ from those applicable to remuneration settled by approved agreements with retrospective effect. Ultimately, the court ruled against the company, upholding the decision to deny the deduction and ordering costs to be paid.
In conclusion, the court held that the managing agency remuneration was not deductible for the assessment year in question, as the liability was ascertained before the government approval with retrospective effect. The court rejected the company's argument that the approval was necessary for the liability to accrue, emphasizing the existing understanding between the parties and the legal effect of the approval.
-
1968 (8) TMI 33
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of penalty imposition under section 28(1)(b) and section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. Impact of Hindu undivided family (HUF) status and its disruption on penalty proceedings.
3. Validity of penalty proceedings initiated against an individual when the income should have been assessed as HUF income.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of Penalty Imposition under Section 28(1)(b) and Section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:
The penalties were imposed for the assessment years 1949-50 and 1954-55 under section 28(1)(b) for non-production of accounts, and for the years 1951-52 and 1953-54 under section 28(1)(c) for concealment of income. The applicant contended that the levy of penalty was not justified, arguing that the family was disrupted in 1956, and therefore, the penalties imposed post-disruption were illegal. The Tribunal held that the applicant could not challenge the penalties since he had filed returns as an individual. However, the court found this reasoning unsound, stating that penalties could not be imposed on a non-existent entity.
2. Impact of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) Status and Its Disruption on Penalty Proceedings:
The applicant argued that he was wrongly assessed as an individual instead of as a Hindu undivided family (HUF). The Income-tax Officer's order under section 25A, dated December 30, 1961, recognized the partition effective from April 23, 1956. The court noted that the existence of the HUF until April 23, 1956, was indisputable and that the assessments should have been made on the HUF, not on the individual. The court emphasized that once the HUF status is recognized, the revenue cannot assess individual members during the continuance of the HUF. The penalties imposed after the recognized partition date were deemed invalid as they were imposed on a non-existent entity.
3. Validity of Penalty Proceedings Initiated Against an Individual When the Income Should Have Been Assessed as HUF Income:
The court highlighted that under the Income-tax Act, a person includes a Hindu undivided family. The penalties imposed on the applicant as an individual were not sustainable since the income belonged to the HUF. The court stated, "If such is the only plausible interpretation and the legal consequence of an order recorded under section 25A(1), can penalty be imposed on a Hindu undivided family which did not exist factually on the date of initiation of such proceedings and on the date when the order for levy of penalty is made? The query has to be answered in the negative." The court concluded that the penalties could not be imposed on the HUF after its disruption and that the applicant could legally avoid such penalties.
Conclusion:
The court answered the query in the negative, ruling in favor of the assessee. The penalties imposed under section 28(1)(b) and section 28(1)(c) for the respective assessment years were deemed invalid due to the disruption of the HUF and the improper assessment of the applicant as an individual. The court emphasized the legal effect of the order recognizing the partition and ruled that penalties could not be sustained on a non-existent entity. The applicant was awarded costs with an advocate's fee of Rs. 250.
-
1968 (8) TMI 32
Issues Involved:
1. Commencement of penalty proceedings under section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Evidence of deliberate concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Commencement of Penalty Proceedings:
The first issue concerns whether the penalty proceedings were properly commenced in the course of any proceeding under the Act for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1962-63. The court examined the provisions of both the Income-tax Act, 1922, and the Income-tax Act, 1961. Under section 28 of the 1922 Act, penalty for concealment of income could be initiated during any proceedings under the Act, with no period of limitation specified. Section 271 of the 1961 Act similarly allows for penalty proceedings to be initiated during any proceedings under the Act, but section 275 imposes a two-year limitation from the date of completion of the main proceedings.
The court cited several precedents to elucidate the interpretation of "in the course of any proceedings under the Act," emphasizing that the initiation of penalty proceedings must occur while the authority is still in seisin of the main proceedings. The court concluded that the Income-tax Officer had indeed initiated penalty proceedings during the pendency of the main assessment or reassessment proceedings for the years in question, as evidenced by the directions to issue notices for penal action under section 271(1)(c) recorded in each assessment order. Thus, the requirements of section 271 read with section 275 of the Act of 1961 were satisfied.
However, for the assessment year 1961-62, the return was filed before April 1, 1962, and the assessment was under the 1922 Act. The court referred to its earlier decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hiralal Mohanlal Shah, which held that penalty proceedings could not be initiated under the 1961 Act for assessments completed under the 1922 Act. Consequently, the penalty proceedings for the assessment year 1961-62 were deemed invalid.
2. Evidence of Deliberate Concealment:
The second issue was whether there was any material or evidence before the Tribunal to hold that the assessee had deliberately concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars as required by section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1962-63. The Tribunal had upheld the penalties based on its earlier decision in the registration proceedings, which concluded that the alleged firm, M/s. Kohinoor Grain Mills Sales Depot, was not a genuine partnership but a sole proprietary concern of the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee had created a deliberate disguise to conceal income.
The court distinguished this case from Commissioner of Income-tax v. L. H. Vora, where it was held that mere falsity of the explanation was insufficient to conclude concealment. Here, the Tribunal had relied on substantive evidence from the registration proceedings, which demonstrated a deliberate attempt by the assessee to conceal income through a fictitious partnership. Therefore, the court found that there was sufficient material to justify the levy of penalties for deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
Conclusion:
1. The penalty proceedings for the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61, and 1962-63 were properly commenced during the main assessment proceedings, but the penalty proceedings for the assessment year 1961-62 were invalid.
2. There was sufficient material to hold that the assessee had deliberately concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars for the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61, and 1962-63.
The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the reference to the Commissioner.
|
9911796707
