Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 2960 2004 SLD 2960 (2004) 270 ITR 214
Jharkhand High Court
TAX CASE No. 36 OF 1998 (R) JANUARY 29, 2004
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, C.J. AND R.K. MERATHIA, J.

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

New United Construction Co.

v.

Commissioner of IncomE tax

Law:

Section:

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Assessment year 1985-86 - Assessee in revised return filed showed a sum of Rs. 2,96,575 as due to sundry creditors - Assessing Officer having noticed that said amount was not payable by assessee but said amount was already received by assessee and credited to its bank account highlighted that aspect to assessee - After that assessee filed second revised return accept-ing receipt of said amount as having been received on 27-7-1984 - Assessee, however, did not disclose in second revised return other receipt of Rs. 46,464, which also formed part of gross receipt of assessee - Assessing Officer added both amounts to income of assessee and completed assessment - Assess-ing Officer also imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) upon assessee - Commissioner (Appeals) accepting contentions of assessee that it intended to account for amount on 'completed project basis', that since it had undertaken a new project in year 1983, receipt of Rs. 4,44,815 during calendar year 1983 and Rs. 2,96,575 during calendar year 1984 had been shown in 'sundry creditors' account instead of being credited to receipt account, that in year 1985 project was completed and entire receipt of Rs. 9,55,453 including amounts received earlier had been duly shown as income for assessment year 1986-87, that, therefore, amount of Rs. 2,96,575 was not included in return for relevant assessment year, that it received amount of Rs. 46,464 in advance for work against running bills, that in meantime TDS certificate had not been received and it alone could have reflected details of recoveries, and that failure to include that amount in return could not be attributed to any effort at concealment of income, set aside penalty order - Tribunal rejected explanation of assessee filed before Commissioner (Appeals) and, accordingly, set aside order of Commissioner (Appeals) and restored order of Assessing Officer imposing penalty - Whether explanation of assessee for non-inclusion of sum of Rs. 46,464 as non-receipt of TDS certificate even when it filed second revised return was clearly unacceptable and, therefore, it 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