Case Details

Citation(s)
1977 SLG 1396 1977 SLD 1396 (1977) 110 ITR 602
Madras High Court
TAX CASE No. 372 OF 1974 (REFERENCE No. 185 OF 1974) FEBRUARY 9, 1977
ISMAIL AND SETHURAMAN, JJ.
A.N Rangaswami and Mrs Nalini Chidambaram for the Applicant.

Commissioner of IncomE tax

v.

J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar

Law:

Section:

Section 271(1)(c) , read with section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Assessment year 1963-64 - Whether where assessee himself admitted that he had filed petition under section 271(4A) before Commissioner wherein he stated that credits found in his accounts were bogus, that his account books could not be relied upon and that he had not utilised import licences but had sold them away, assessee could be said to have intentionally and deliberately concealed particulars of his income - Held, yes - Whether after having originally concealed income, if an assessee subsequently files a fresh return voluntarily before income-tax department has made any investigation or detected concealment of income, subsequent return will not be a revised return as contemplated by section 139(5) and assessee cannot escape from consequence of his having concealed income and he will be liable to penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Held, yes Words and phrases : 'Concealed' occurring in section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 'Omission' occurring in section 139(5) of Income-tax Act, 1961 'Discover' occurring in section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. FACTS The assessee filed a return of income, disclosing income. Subsequently, he filed a second return of income showing enhanced income. The ITO completed the assessment on a total income higher than the returned income. The ITO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c ) and the IAC levied the penalty. On appeal, the assessee contended that after filing the original return and before any detection by the department, the assessee himself filed a petition under section 271(4A)for the assessment year 1962-63, and in that very petition it was stated that the hundi loans were not genuine, but brought into the books for adjustment or for cash, partly out of licence income. And that the books did not reflect the correct position and, therefore, the peak credit thereof would not be a proper indication of the undisclosed income. Similarly, for the assessment year in question, the assessee had mentioned in his letter dated 5-2-1968, full details about the licence and, therefore, it was made…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492