Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1991 (6) TMI 54

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1975, and further that the substantive points involved in this reference are already covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. Suleman Abdul Sattar [1983] 139 ITR 8, and insisted that the matter should be heard and disposed of by this Bench. Since both counsel wanted this Bench to take up the matter for hearing as the matter was covered by an earlier decision of this court, it has been taken up for hearing. The assessee had filed a return for the assessment year 1970-71 declaring the total income as Rs. 4,577. In Part IV of the said return, the assessee had claimed a total amount of Rs. 1,03,966 as cross-word puzzle prize of a casual nature. By order dated March 27, 1973, the Income-tax Officer framed the assessment on a total incom .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ld that this was a case covered by the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The matter was carried to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad, against the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal found that the contentions raised by the parties were identical with those raised in Jogibhai Mangalbhai v. ITO decided by the Tribunal on October 18, 1975. It was agreed by the parties before the Tribunal that since the matter was covered by jogibhai's case rendered by the Tribunal earlier, the penalty levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner shall have to be cancelled and, accordingly, the Tribunal not finding it necessary to set out the contentions raised in this case saw no reason to ma .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h my esteemed brother was a party) and the facts on which that reference arose were more or less identical with the facts of the present case. In that case also, from the documents and materials seized during the search and the statements recorded in connection with the crossword competition during the course of investigation, it was discovered that the crossword puzzle was conducted only with a view to lend colour of legitimate source to unaccounted money and convert it into white money. The assessee in that case had disclosed sum of money in Part IV of the return as prize money won in a crossword competition which disclosure was factually false since the amount was in fact not won in any crossword competition whatsoever. The Tribunal, in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Act resulted in a penalty, but, the Appellate Tribunal, following its decision in the case of Jogibhai Mangalbhai, cancelled the penalty on the assessee. Answering the questions referred for opinion in the negative, it was held that the Tribunal was not right in holding that, on account of the disclosure made by the assessee in Part IV of the return, he could not be said to have concealed his income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereon and that, consequently, levy of penalty under section 271 (1) (c) was not justified. In CIT v. Shri Imtiaz U. Digmar [1987] 163 ITR 229 again the said question had arisen before this High Court and was answered following Suleman Abdul Sattar's case [1983] 139 ITR 8. Both learned counsel argued .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not disputed by both learned counsel that the question did not in fact arise from the decision of the Tribunal for our consideration. We, therefore, hold that, since question No. (3) does not arise for our consideration, it is not necessary to answer the same. Mr. J. P. Shah, learned counsel, submitted that the other contentions which were required to be raised before the Tribunal were not raised and considered since it disposed of the matter following its earlier decision in jogibhai's case. We make it clear that, if it is open to the assessee to raise any other contentions before the Tribunal, they can be so raised and suitably dealt with by the Tribunal in accordance with law. The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates