Case Details

Citation(s)
1983 SLG 961 1983 SLD 961 (1983) 142 ITR 747
Madras High Court
TAX CASE Nos. 1618 AND 1619 OF 1977 REFERENCE Nos. 1150 AND 1151 OF 1977
BALASUBRAHMANYAN AND PADMANABHAN, JJ.
J. Jayaraman and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram for the Applicant. V. Ramachandran and K. Mani for the
Respondent.

Commissioner of IncomE tax

v.

N. Sowbhagmull Mahavirchand

Law:

Section:

Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys - Assessment year 1971-72 - Certain contraband foreign gold bars were seized by Central Excise authorities from possession of assessee's clerk in March, 1971 which were meant to be delivered to 'GC' - In his statement, 'GC' admitted of his having transaction with assessee and that he had received some gold bars from assessee in February, 1971 - Assessee admitted of his involvement in both transactions - Value of gold bars in both transactions were added to assessee's income as unexplained sources by ITO under section 69A - Tribunal inferred that proceeds for purchase of later gold bars might have come from sale proceeds of earlier delivered gold bars and hence concluded that value of earlier consignment alone could be added as unexplained investment - Where inference of Tribunal based on probabilities of case must be regarded as a factual inference for which there was ample material on record and no error of law had been made out by it in its decision - Held, yes Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Assessment year 1971-72 - Whether question of reduction in quantum of assessment as well as in quantum of penalty depends entirely on evaluation of relevant materials by Tribunal, and, in that sense any estimate of income which gets so determined is a question of degree, and hence one of pure fact - Held, yes - Whether on facts stated under head 'Unexplained Moneys' where it was nobody's case that there was an element of profit on sale of bars of gold during February, 1971, nevertheless, Tribunal sustained penalty to extent of Rs. 6,000 only by reference to a plausible profit element in said transaction which assessee had with 'GC' as respects 25 bars of gold, there was no scope at all for interference with conclusion of Tribunal - Held, yes FACTS The assessee was carrying on business in jewellery and money-lending. He was also a partner in some textile concerns. In Madras 1971 a clerk of the assessee was apprehended by the Central Excise authorities in carrying 25 bars of gold with foreign markings which were allegedly meant to be delivered to certain…
🔒
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