Case Details

Citation(s)
1985 SLG 993 1985 SLD 993 (1985) 152 ITR 529
Madras High Court
30739
G. RAMANUJAM AND V. RATNAM, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Commissioner of IncomE tax

v.

B.A. Balasubramanian & Bros. Co.

Law:

Section:

Section 271(1)(c) of the income-tax act, 1961-penalty-for concealment of income-assessee did not import goods against import licences it received, but sold them as such-during assessment, assessee did not furnish complete details of commodities covered by said licences and claimed that he could not do so due to lapse of time-income from sale of licences determined on estimate by ito was based on market quotations and was higher than amount disclosed by assessee-whether in view of explanation to section 271(1)(c) there was concealment of income justifying imposition of penalty-held, on facts, yes. Facts The assessee was a registered firm carrying on business in tannery. As against their export of tanned skins, the assessee received import licences which were based on a percentage value of the goods exported. The assessee, however, did not actually import goods against the said import licences, but sold them as such. At the time of the assessment relating to the assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-70, the ITO called for full details of the commodities, and the profits earned with reference to each of the import licences. Since complete details were not furnished by the assessee, the ITO estimated the income earned by the sale of licences based on the market quotations on premiums published in financial journals. The income determined by the ITO for each of the three relevant assessment years was higher than the income disclosed by the assessee. Thereafter, the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c ) were initiated. The Commissioner upheld the decision to impose penalty. On further appeal, the Tribunal deleted the penalty on the grounds (i) that merely because the income from the sale of licences was fixed at a higher figure than the amount disclosed by the assessee, it did not mean that the difference represented the concealed income of the assessee ; (ii) that since the income from the sale of licences was adopted at an estimate, that could not form the basis for the levy of penalty ; and (iii) that merely on the ground that the names and addresses of some of the parties furnished by the assessee, as the persons to whom the licences were sold could not be…
🔒
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