| Case ID |
0a9d742f-2da7-482b-afa9-7503adff3765 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2002 |
| Decision Date |
Aug 21, 2002 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The appeal was allowed with the ruling that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are not applicable where the income of an assessee is assessed on an estimate basis and additions are made on that basis. The court found that there was no positive evidence to suggest that the taxpayer concealed income or provided inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal's reliance on Explanation 1(B) to presume concealment was deemed erroneous, reinforcing the principle that the onus of proof lies with the department to establish concealment. As a result, the impugned order of the Tribunal was set aside and that of the Commissioner (Appeals) was restored, leading to a reinstatement of the taxpayer's position regarding the income declared based on estimates. |
| Summary |
In the case of Harigopal Singh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed the applicability of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding penalties for concealment of income. The central issue was whether penalties could be imposed when an assessee's income is assessed on an estimated basis. The court ruled that mere estimation of income does not equate to concealment. The taxpayer, a sweets seller, had declared his income based on estimates without maintaining formal accounts. The Assessing Officer initially assessed his income at a significantly higher figure, leading to penalty proceedings. However, upon appeal, the Tribunal found the original estimate excessive and reduced it. The court emphasized that for penalties to apply, there must be clear evidence of concealment, which was not present in this case. This ruling underscores the importance of proper assessment procedures and the need for the department to establish concealment to impose penalties effectively. Keywords: Income Tax Act, penalty for concealment, income assessment, legal ruling, tax law. |
| Court |
Punjab and Haryana High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
N.K. Sodhi,
Virender Singh
|
| Lawyers |
P.C. Jain,
Pankaj Jain,
N.L. Sharda
|
| Petitioners |
Harigopal Singh
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Citations |
2002 SLD 1614,
(2002) 258 ITR 85
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
260A,
271(1)(c),
274
|