Ram Kakar,, vs Department Of Income Tax on 8 August, 2014
20. Similar view is expressed by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High
Court in the case of Rajesh Syal (supra) relied upon by the learned
counsel. However, the facts of the assessee's case are altogether
different. For AY 1997-98, though the assessee had income of more
than `10 lakhs, he did not file any return at all. The assessee has not
paid any advance tax. Therefore, there was no overt act on the part of
the assessee which would indicate that the assessee had the intention
to disclose the income. Therefore, on the facts of the assessee's case,
both the above decisions relied upon by the learned counsel would be
in favour of the Revenue rather than the assessee. That merely
because TDS is deducted by a third party, which he was obliged to
deduct under the statute, cannot be indicative of the intention of the
assessee to disclose the income. In view of the above, we find no
merit in ground No.3 of the assessee's appeal. The same is rejected.