| Case ID |
2e189281-ee6e-4c80-b628-560eaebe7266 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
TAX CASE No. 532 OF 1976 |
| Decision Date |
Dec 09, 1980 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was upheld. The High Court noted that merely rejecting the assessee's explanation was insufficient to establish concealment of income. The case emphasized that there must be positive evidence of conscious concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars. In this case, no evidence was found regarding the actual purchase or sale of allegedly suppressed stock, supporting the Tribunal's stance. The court affirmed that the findings from the assessment stage are not conclusive for penalty imposition, and each case must be evaluated based on its specific facts. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income. The assessee, engaged in cotton business, faced discrepancies between stock records and bank declarations. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected the assessee's explanations regarding these discrepancies, leading to an addition to the income and subsequent penalties. However, the Tribunal found that the mere rejection of explanations was insufficient for penalty imposition, as there was no concrete evidence of concealment. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the need for positive evidence of deliberate concealment. This case highlights the importance of thorough verification and the necessity for the tax department to provide cogent evidence before imposing penalties for income concealment. It serves as a critical reference for tax professionals and advocates in understanding the nuances of penalty provisions under the Income-tax Act. |
| Court |
Madras High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
V. Ramaswami,
P. Venugopal
|
| Lawyers |
A.N Rangaswami,
C.V. Rajan,
S. Swaminathan,
S.A Balasubramanian
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Respondents |
V.L. Balakrishnan
|
| Citations |
1981 SLD 1765,
(1981) 130 ITR 138
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. M. Bhuta & Co. [1976] 103 ITR 183 (Bom.),
CIT v. Sohan Lal Brij Lal [1979] 120 ITR 901 (Raj.),
CIT v. Murlidhar Chiranjilal [1980] 121 ITR 528 (Bom.),
CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC),
CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
271(1)(c)
|