Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 2940 2004 SLD 2940 (2004) 270 ITR 590
Rajasthan High Court
D.B. INCOME-TAX REFERENCE No. 30 OF 1985 APRIL 21, 2003
Y.R. MEENA AND SHASHI KANT SHARMA, 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.

Smt. Shakuntala Devi

Law:

Section:

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Assessment year 1966-67 - Assessee, a medical practitioner, had shown in his return gross receipt of Rs. 93,802 and net receipt of Rs. 43,802 - Assessing Officer, on basis of information that assessee had issued certificates to Government employees and gross receipts were Rs. 1,09,489, taxed amount of Rs. 1,09,489 as income from profession - Tribunal reduced that figure to Rs. 1,05,000 - Assessing Officer imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) which was cancelled by Tribunal on ground that assessee had shown gross receivables in his return and, thus, there was no concealment - Whether even if it was accepted that there was no concealment for penalty uptil Rs. 93,802, figure exceeding that amount was definitely a concealment of income and liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) for which there was no explanation - Held, yes J.K. Singhi and Anuroop Singhi for the Applicant. Vivek Singhal for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. On an application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court:- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 85,000 imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" 2. The assessee late Dr. L.M. Simlot was a medical practitioner. The relevant assessment year is 1966-67. In that year, he was also an employee of the Government of Rajasthan. In the returns, he has shown income from salary as well as from private practice. 3. The assessee did not maintain any regular books of accounts in respect of his private practice. The assessee filed returns and those returns were revised thrice and different figures of income has been shown in the returns. The ITO had in his possession information that the assessee had issued certificates to the employees of postal department and gross receipts were Rs. 1,09,489. This fact was brought to the notice of the assessee. He simply replied that he has not received the total amount of receipts issued by him, but he has received only…
🔒
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