Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Mr. Surender Paul Versus CIT, Chandigarh

2016 (3) TMI 149 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Penalty u/s 271 - Amount disclosed under Section 132(4) - Held that:- A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that the order passed by the Tribunal in the factual matrix involved herein requires to be re-adjudicated in the light of the interpretation given by the Apex Court in Gebilal Kanhaialal's case (2012 (9) TMI 297 - SUPREME COURT ) to clause (2) of Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as the Tribunal is the final fact finding authority who is required to deal with all aspects .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

shall dispose of a bunch of three appeals bearing ITA Nos. 386 of 2004, 47 and 104 of 2005 as according to learned counsel for the parties, the identical questions of law and facts are involved therein. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from ITA No. 47 of 2005. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) against the order dated 31.8.2004 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

offered adjustment of those assets against his taxes due vide a note appended to return of income, thus the appellant cannot be penalized on the ground of non payment of taxes? (ii) Whether, the decision of ITAT and authorities below is perverse in holding that the return of income has not been furnished in time while in fact it has been furnished on 23.5.1994 for the A.Y. 1994-95? (iii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in law that the return of income s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed. During the course of search, a disclosure of ₹ 3 lacs was made under Section 132(4) of the Act. The said amount was surrendered subject to no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A further disclosure of ₹ 6 lacs was made in the hands of Shri Dipti Lal, Shri Raj Kumar, Dipti Lal and Sons besides ₹ 3 lacs in the case of Shri Surinder Pal (the appellant herein) for the assessment year 1994-95. The income tax return for the assessment year 1994-95 was filed by the assess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

₹ 2,05,837/- Shri Raj Kumar ₹ 1,71,498/- Rs. 2,05,837/- Shri Dipti Lal ₹ 83,278/- ₹ 1,31,884/- The seizure of the assets was worth ₹ 26,01,584/- as against the taxes due amounting to ₹ 9,69,841/- on the basis of returns of income filed by all the family members. The assessment was finalized vide order dated 27.12.1996 at a total income of ₹ 11,13,739/- by presuming the business of jewellery as a joint business of the father and two brothers. The said as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

amount disclosed under Section 132(4) read with Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who vide order dated 27.3.2001 (Annexure A-5) dismissed the appeal. Against the order, Annexure A-5, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 31.8.2004 (Annexure A-1) upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeals. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee-appellant s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(4) of the Act. On that premises, it was submitted that the Tribunal had failed to grant benefit under Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act to the assessee and deleted the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gebilal Kanhaialal, HUF, (2012) 348 ITR 561 (SC), learned counsel contended that the assessee could deposit the tax along with interest at any time when no time limit for payment wa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Act which at the relevant time existed as under:- Explanation 5: Where in the course of a search under section 132, the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing (hereafter in this Explanation referred to as assets) and the assessee claims that such assets have been acquired by him by utilizing (wholly or in part) his income,- (a) For any previous year which has ended before the date of the search, but the return of income for such .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, unless, - (2) he, in the course of the search, makes a statement under sub-section (4) of section 132 that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing found in his possession or under his control, has been acquired out of his income which has not been disclosed so far in his return of income to be furnished before the expiry of time specified in subsection (1) of section 139, and also specifies .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ner of unaccounted assets and the assessee claims that such assets have been acquired by him by utilizing, wholly or partly, his income for any previous year which has ended before the date of search or which is to end on or after the date of search, then, in such a situation, notwithstanding that such income is declared by him in any return of income furnished on or after the date of search, he shall be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income for the purposes of imposition of pen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

atement under Section 132(4) in the course of search stating that the unaccounted assets and incriminating documents found from his possession during the search have been acquired out of his income, which has not been disclosed in the return of income to be furnished before expiry of time specified in Section 139(1). Such statement was made by the Karta during the search which concluded on August 1, 1987. It is not in dispute that condition No.1 was fulfilled. The second condition for availing o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ome on 31st July, 1987 and pay tax thereon particularly when the assessee conceded on August 1, 1987 that there was concealment of income. The third condition under clause (2) was that the assessee had to pay the tax together with interest, if any, in respect of such undisclosed income. However, no time limit for payment of such tax stood prescribed under clause (2). The only requirement stipulated in the third condition was for the assessee to "pay tax together with interest". In the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion 132 (4). 9. The Supreme Court in the above noted pronouncement had held that the following circumstances are required to be fulfilled by the assessee to claim benefit under Clause (2) of Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and seek immunity therefrom:- (i) the assessee must make a statement under Section 132(4) in the course of search stating that the unaccounted assets and incriminating documents found from his possession during the search have been acquired out of his income, wh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r the assessee to "pay tax together with interest". 10. Delving into the controversy raised herein, it would be expedient to notice that the assessee filed his income tax return for the assessment year 1994-95 on 23.5.1994 declaring the income at ₹ 4,70,000/- inclusive of surrender under Section 132(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 31.1.2000 (Annexure A-2) framed the assessment accepting the returned/surrendered income at ₹ 4,70,000/-. The Deputy Commis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version