| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1991 SLG 1816 1991 SLD 1816 (1991) 190 ITR 427 |
Bombay High Court
T.D. SUGLA AND D.R. DHANUKA, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
T.D. SUGLA AND D.R. DHANUKA, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($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.
Lullabhai Hirabhai
Law:
Section:
Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Assessment year 1969-70 - Whether where assessee had disclosed particulars of his income in Part IV of return, there was no concealment and therefore, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be levied - Held, yes FACTS For the relevant assessment year the total income of assessee included certain prize money. The assessee showed said amount in part IV of the return. However, the ITO while completing the assessment, recorded a finding that the provisions of section 271(1) were attracted and referred the matter to the IAC for imposition of penalty. The IAC imposed a penalty after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard, which was deleted by the Tribunal. On reference : HELD In the case of CIT v. Dajibhai Kanjibai [1991] 189 ITR 41 (Bom.), this court held that when an assessee had disclosed particulars of his income in Part IV of the return, there was no concealment. Following the above decision, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty. Note : The case has been decided in favour of the assessee. CASE REFERRED TO CIT v. Dajibhai Kanjibhai [1991] 189 ITR 41 (Bom.). Dr. Balasubramaniam for the Applicant. Ms. Vasanti Patel and Ms. R. Vaze for the Respondent. JUDGMENT T.D. Sugla, J.- The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following three questions as questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: "(1)Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that due to disclosure made by the assessee in Part IV of the return, the assessee could not be said to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and consequently, levy of penalty under the said section was not justified? (2)Whether the disclosure of the prize money receipts in Part IV of the return of income could be considered as true and full disclosure within the meaning of section 271 (1)(c) of the Act? (3)Whether…
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