Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.19 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Mahendra Singh on 5 November, 1996

Haryana Delhi Tpt Commission Agency vs Asstt. Cit on 21 June, 2000

2.1. The assessing officer also initiated proceedings for penalty under section 271(1)(c) after serving a show-cause notice. The assessee submitted that assessee had only one source of income i.e. commission agency of transportation of goods from Agra to Delhi and no other income was being earned by it. In this connection reference to the statements of Maya Prakash Goyal, Prakash Chand Goyal and Raj Pal Kohli, contractors, recorded during assessment proceedings by assessing officer were also referred to in which each of them stated that assessee was not being paid any commission income for transporting Gitti. The submission was that assessee-firm was doing this work for the convenience of contractors as once a truck was going with Gitti, on return trip the assessee was getting commission for transportation of goods of others in those return trips and earning commission income and not from transportation of Gitti. The assessing officer asked the assessee as to why this plea was not taken at the time of assessment. It was submitted that case was not properly represented before the assessing officer and Commissioner (Appeals) and further penalty proceedings are distinct proceedings in which any new ground can be taken and reference was made to the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Mahendra Singh (1983) 139 ITR 160 (All) and Banaras Taxtorium v. CIT (1988) 169 ITR 782 (All). Ratio of these cases was not found applicable in the facts of the present case and assessing officer placed reliance on p. No. 38 of serial No. 30 of seizure memo and noted that assessee was preparing different figures for income-tax purpose. Other facts noted by assessing officer was the finding in the assessment order on book note at SI. No. 4 of seizure memo and concluded that assessee was having commission income from transportation of Gitti and income from that business. He took into consideration that no doubt amount of income stood reduced by Commissioner (Appeals) and further by Tribunal but fact remains that what source of income stood confirmed and that showed that assessee had concealed the main source of income. The plea of the learned counsel for the assessee that income was assessed on the basis of estimate by assessing officer, by Commissioner (Appeals) and by Tribunal, did not bring any result of the plea that concealment was found proved when it was proved that there was income and not disclosed in the return by the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Agra Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1