Case Details

Citation(s)
2005 SLG 2059 2005 SLD 2059 (2005) 272 ITR 633
Kerala High Court
IT APPEAL No. 202 OF 2000 OCTOBER 4, 2004
S. SANKARASUBBAN AND A.K. BASHEER, 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

K. Bhaskaran

v.

Assistant Commissioner of IncomE tax

Law:

Section:

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Assessment year 1984-85 - Pursuant to search and seizure conducted in assessee's hospital, Assessing Officer made addition of certain amount on account of omission to account for delivery charges, operation theatre and other charges and medical attention charges and, accordingly, levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) with reference to all additions made - Commissioner (Appeals) cancelled penalty levied on all charges - Tribunal set aside order of appellate authority and sustained levy of penalty in respect of delivery charges - Whether since assessee, in many cases, did not recover delivery charges, it could not be said that there was concealment or wilful evasion - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, Tribunal was not correct in treating income as concealed and assessee was not liable to pay penalty - Held, yes FACTS Pursuant to search and seizure conducted in the assessee's hospital, the Assessing Officer made addition of certain amount on account of omission to account for delivery charges, operation theatre and other charges and medical attention charges. On appeal, the Tribunal only sustained the addition made in respect of delivery charges and deleted other two additions. However, during the pendency of the appeal, the Assessing Officer levied penalty with reference to all the additions made. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that no penalty could be levied in respect of operation theatre and other charges and medical attention charges since they had been deleted by the Tribunal and further that there was no concrete evidence to show that the assessee had in fact earned income in respect of delivery charges and, therefore, no penalty for concealment was leviable even in respect of said addition. On further appeal, the Tribunal set aside the order of the appellate authority and sustained the levy of penalty in respect of delivery charges. On appeal : HELD It could not be said that the income was concealed. The explanation given by the assessee was that so far as the delivery charges were concerned, in many cases, charges were not realised. But the only drawback was…
🔒
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