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 →

Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore. Versus Saburam Premchand

2005 (9) TMI 658 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

I.T.R.C. NO. 523/1998. - Dated:- 5-9-2005 - MR H. L. DATTU AND MR H. N. NAGAMOHAN DAS, JJ. JUDGMENT The assessee is a firm. It had filed its return of income for the assessment year 1987-88 declaring a total income of ₹ 2, 85,150/-. The Assessing Authority had completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act ( the Act for short) on an income of ₹ 2,87,970/- 2. During an investigation in some other group cases, one Sri. Vimal Kumar Agarwal had stated before the Assi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e notice so issued the assessee while denying the contents of the notice, offered a sum of ₹ 1,15,000/- for the purpose of taxation as firm s income with a view to buy peace from the department provided no penalty proceedings would be initiated and the penalty is levied. 3. After receiving the report of Assistant Director of Inspection, the Assessing Officer had initiated re-assessment proceedings by issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act. In response of the notice the assesse had f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing satisfied with the explanation offered, levied a penalty in a sum of ₹ 70,000/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This order was confirmed by the first Appellate Authority. In the further appeal filed by the assessee before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal the Tribunal has allowed the appeal after giving the following finding at paragraph 5 of its order: 5 We have heard the parties and we have gone through the case record. We are of the opinion that no penalty is imposable under 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

income and for all practical purposes the said return was accepted. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the department has failed to prove that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income and that penalty could be imposed on account of concealment. We are of the opinion that the decision of the CIT(A) is based on incorrect appreciation of facts. In his order in para 8 he has not mentioned the fact that Shri Vimal Kumar Aggarwal was not cross-examined by the assessee. In a penalty pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e order passed by the Assessing Officer in levying penalty under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 5. At the instance of the revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for our consideration and opinion, It is as under; Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in canceling the penalty of ₹ 70,000/- imposed under Sec. 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 6. The only reason assigned by the Tribun .....

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