| Case ID |
e9901dfc-bd2f-4dd5-9c28-4d82ceb95e09 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
13562 |
| Decision Date |
|
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The case revolves around the issue of income escaping assessment under the Income-tax Act. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) had initially accepted the assessee's claim of loss, but upon further examination, discovered discrepancies in the financial records. The ITO revised the assessment, concluding that the assessee had concealed profits through false entries. The court held that the assessment was valid under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that the provisions allow for action against an assessee when income has escaped assessment, regardless of the reasons. The fraudulent nature of the return and the delayed detection were critical in upholding the revised assessment. |
| Summary |
This case highlights the procedural intricacies of tax assessments under the Income-tax Act, particularly focusing on section 34 concerning the escape of income from assessment. The assessee, Lokumal Bhojumal, initially filed a return indicating a loss, which was accepted by the ITO. However, discrepancies arose in subsequent assessments, leading to a revision based on the discovery of substantial capital increases that were not adequately explained. The court ruled in favor of the ITO, affirming that the assessment was valid and that the provisions of the Act were applicable in cases of fraud and misrepresentation. This case serves as a critical reference point for understanding tax evasion and the legal recourse available to tax authorities. It underscores the importance of maintaining accurate financial records and the potential consequences of filing fraudulent returns. Key terms include 'Income-tax Act', 'income escaping assessment', 'tax evasion', and 'false entries'. |
| Court |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Entities Involved |
|
| Judges |
Rupchand, A.J.C.
|
| Lawyers |
Partabrai D. Punwani,
Dipchand Chandumal
|
| Petitioners |
Lokumal Bhojumal
|
| Respondents |
|
| Citations |
1938 SLD 60 = (1938) 6 ITR 51
|
| Other Citations |
Rajendra Nath Mukherjee v. CIT [1934] (2 I.T.R. 71 ; 7 I.T.C. 143 ; I.L.R. 61 Cal. 285),
Amir Singh Sher Singh v. CIT [1935] (3 I.T.R. 171 ; 8 I.T.C. 198),
Rex v. Bradbury [1920] (37 I.L.R. 88)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
147,
34
|