Case Details

Citation(s)
1987 SLG 3485 1987 SLD 3485 (1987) 168 ITR 619
Bombay High Court

S.P. BHARUCHA AND V.A. MOHTA, 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

R.B. Shreeram Durgaprasad & Fatechand Narsinghdas (Export Firm)

v.

Commissioner of Income Tax

Law:

Section:

Section 271(1)(c) [as it stood at relevant time] of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Whether where Tribunal's inference that assessee-firm had consciously concealed particulars of its income was not based upon falsity of assessee's explanation but on positive material which indicated that whole scheme of ingenious manipulations made by assessee was to disguise profits, penalty imposed by it under section 271(1)(c) was to be upheld - Held, yes Facts The accounts of the assessee-firm were kept combined with that of another firm. Consequent to search of the assessee's premises certain documents and account books were seized, which on scrutiny, revealed unaccounted transactions and gave indications of concealment of income. For the assessment year 1948-49, the ITO reopened the assessee's assessment and issued a notice. Pursuant thereto the assessee filed a return which too the ITO found Improper and subsequently, made additions of certain amount since in his opinion certain cash credits in the combined books were not explained. Further, the IAC imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 upon the assessee under section 271(1)(c). On appeal, the Tribunal referred to the ingenious manipulations made by the assessee which came to light because of the seizure of certain documents at a later stage and the assessee's inability to give a satisfactory explanation. Accordingly, he confirmed the penalty imposed by the IAC. Held In the instant case the Tribunal found that when a specific opportunity was given by the ITO to the assessee to explain the situation, it did not come forward with a satisfactory explanation. It was for the assessee to show to the departmental authorities the movement of the actual cash balance if its submission was that the cash balance had been accounted for in the sum of Rs. 1,35,000 ; that had not been done. If that sum was to be linked up to unexplained income, it was for the assessee to show; that too the assessee had not done. The inference that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars of its income was not based merely upon the falsity of the explanation given by it. It was made amply clear by the Tribunal's…
🔒
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