Law: Income Tax Act, 1922

Section: 28(1)(c),28(3)

Income-tax Act, 1922 -- Section 28(1)(c) -- Non production of Sauda bahi before the Income-tax Officer -- Adduced before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who held it to be a fabricated one -- Imposition of penalty by Appellate Assistant Commissioner for concealing particulars of Income -- Whether justified -- Held not justified -- Appeal -- Limitation -- Noting down wrong date of service of appellate order on memorandum of appeal "deliberately or inadvertently" -- Condemned -- Penalty -- Concealing particulars of income of furnishing inaccurate particulars -- Production at appeal stage of fabricated bahi respeculative transactions, in order to support claim for deductions -- Held not to be covered by section 28(1)(c) -- Case for criminal prosecution - ORDER (The Judgment was delivered by Syed Ali Khan, President). The first-named appeal arises out of the appellant's assessment made in respect of the charge year 1951-52. The other appeal arises out of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under section 28(1)(c), in respect of the same charge year. 2. We will take up the assessment appeal first. As it now transpires, a copy of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order was served on the assessee on the 7th May, 1956. As such, the appeal to the Tribunal should have been lodged on or before the 6th July, 1956, but it was actually filed on the 30th July, 1956, that is, 24 days too late. It is unfortunate that in the memorandum of appeal the date of service is put down as the 1st Dune 1956, and but for the vigilance of our office the mistake might have gone undetected. The practice of putting down incorrect dates of service inadvertently or deliberately cannot be too strongly condemned. It is unnecessary to make an enquiry in the matter since the appeal has not been pressed before us. It would stand dismissed. 3. We now come to the penalty appeal. In the assessment proceedings the assessee had claimed to deduct speculation loss amounting to Rs. 54,252/-. The Income-tax Officer declined to admit the loss to deduction since, in his opinion, the assessee had failed to substantiate his claim. The Income-tax Officer…

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