Legal Case Summary

Case Details
Case ID 22d00316-1518-4dc6-9553-39b1df8ae850
Body View case body.
Case Number I.T.C. No. 32 of 1998
Decision Date Aug 11, 1999
Hearing Date
Decision The Delhi High Court dismissed the application for reference, concluding that the Tribunal had correctly determined that the assessee explained the cash found during the search operations. The Tribunal's findings indicated that the cash availability was substantiated by the entries in the books of account, and there was no concealment of income. The penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was deemed unjustified as the assessee's surrender of the income in the revised return did not warrant such action. The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, establishing that there was no question of law arising from the case.
Summary In the case of I.T.C. No. 32 of 1998, the Delhi High Court addressed a significant matter concerning income tax penalties. The Commissioner of Income Tax contested the Tribunal's decision to cancel a penalty imposed on Gauri Shanker Sushil Kumar & Co. for alleged concealment of income. The Tribunal found that the assessee could explain the cash discovered in a search, supported by proper accounting entries. The court held that the penalty was unwarranted, emphasizing the importance of evidence in tax assessments and the legitimacy of revised returns. This case is pivotal for understanding tax law and the criteria for imposing penalties, making it a reference point for future income tax cases. The court's ruling reinforces that mere surrender of income does not automatically imply concealment, promoting fair practices in tax administration.
Court Delhi High Court
Entities Involved Not available
Judges Arun Kumar, D. K. Jain
Lawyers Sanjeev Khanna, Ajay Kumar Jha, S.R. Kharbanda
Petitioners COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Respondents GAURI SHANKER SUSHIL KUMAR & CO.
Citations 2001 SLD 415, 2001 PTD 2740, (1999) 239 ITR 899
Other Citations CIT v. Lal Chand Tirath Ram (1997) 225 ITR 675 (P & H)
Laws Involved Indian Income Tax Act, 1961
Sections 256, 271