Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 3859 2007 SLD 3859 (2007) 293 ITR 285
Gujarat High Court

R.S. GARG AND M.R. SHAH, 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


Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411

Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435

Law:

Section:

2007] 293 ITR 285 [2007] 164 TAXMAN 334 (GUJ.) HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT Deepak Construction Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad* R.S. GARG AND M.R. SHAH, JJ. IT REFERENCE NO. 269 OF 1995 AUGUST 23, 2006 Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Assessment year 1983-84 - Whether where detection of concealment of income by Assessing Officer was much before filing of revised return by assessee, assessee would be entitled to any benefits of amnesty scheme - Held, no Circulars and Notifications : Circular No. 450, dated 13-2-1986; Circular No. 451, dated 17-2-1986 FACTS The assessee-firm engaged in the activity of construction submitted a return of income for the assessment year 1983-84. The assessment could not be completed up to October, 1985. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice to the assessee on 24-2-1986 with respect to the squared up cash credits requiring the assessee to make compliance by 5-3-1986. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return and declared the total income including a sum of Rs. 1 lakh in addition to the earlier income. The assessee claimed the benefit of Amnesty Scheme to avoid the liability of the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer accepted the revised return and made an addition of Rs. 1 lakh. Thereupon, he initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The assessee submitted its reply dated 4-11-1986 stating that the firm filed the return for the assessment years 1983-84 to 1985-86 in terms of the circulars of the CBDT and therefore, it was entitled to immunity and accordingly, the penalty could not be levied. The Assessing Officer rejected the explanation offered by the assessee and levied the minimum penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee. HELD After the notice dated 24-2-1986 was served upon the assessee, he came out of his slumber, started acting honest and submitted the revised return. It was not the case of the assessee either before the Assessing Officer or before the Tribunal that much before service of the show-cause…
🔒
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