| Case ID |
00a30408-07fb-488f-b000-21231eadef09 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
I.T.A. No. 153 OF 2003 |
| Decision Date |
May 05, 2005 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Delhi High Court upheld the findings of the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal, stating that the surrender of income was made in response to the department's confrontation and could not be deemed voluntary. The court found that the Tribunal's conclusion of deemed concealment was appropriate and that the explanations provided by the assessee were not bona fide. The appeal by the revenue was allowed, affirming the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act for concealment of income. |
| Summary |
In the case of Kamal Chand Jain v. Income Tax Officer, the Delhi High Court examined the application of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 concerning penalties for concealment of income. The case revolved around the assessment year 1991-92, where the assessee declared a net income but later surrendered a significant amount during assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer added this amount to the income and imposed a penalty for concealment, arguing that the surrender was not voluntary but rather a result of being confronted by the tax authorities. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially ruled in favor of the assessee, indicating that the surrender was voluntary. However, the Tribunal reversed this decision, emphasizing the lack of a bona fide explanation from the assessee and the nature of deemed concealment. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, highlighting the importance of substantial support for any claims made by the assessee and confirming that the case did not raise any substantial question of law. The decision reinforced the principles of tax compliance and the consequences of non-disclosure. |
| Court |
Delhi High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Swatanter Kumar,
Madan B. Lokur
|
| Lawyers |
Balram Sanghal,
R.D. Jolly,
Ajay Jha
|
| Petitioners |
Kamal Chand Jain
|
| Respondents |
Income Tax Officer
|
| Citations |
2005 SLD 2521,
(2005) 277 ITR 429
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC),
Addl. CIT v. Burugupalli China Krishnamurthy [1980] 121 ITR 326 (AP),
CIT v. Ganjanand Shyamlal [1978] 111 ITR 816 (Gauhati),
CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC),
CIT v. Nipani Tobacco Stores [1984] 145 ITR 128 (Pat.),
CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. [1961] 42 ITR 589 (SC),
Electrical Agencies Corpn. v. CIT [2002] 253 ITR 619 (Delhi),
K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC),
Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 705 (SC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
271(1)(c)
|