Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (1.70 seconds)
Documents citing Additional Commissioner Of ... vs Noor Mohd & Co. And Others. on 24 April, 1973

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Kishanchand (Also Cit V. Kishanchand ... on 7 August, 1992

It was on this basis that the Tribunal had come to the finding in the case of Kishanchand that entries regarding the amount of Rs. 4,60,290 pertained to his business in his individual capacity, that the total amount involved was Rs. 1,82,000 and that this amount of Rs. 1,82,000 had been satisfactorily explained. In these circumstances in the first instance the cases are on facts and based on evidence on record and have been discussed in detail by the Tribunal in its order and hence do not give rise to any question of law. However, even if the contentions of the learned Departmental Representative that they involved the question of presumption under S. 134(4A) are taken into account, they do not help the Revenue because as per the decision of the Honble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Noor Mohd. & Co. (1974) 97 ITR 705 (Raj) the question whether a statutory presumption had been rebutted by evidence in a given case is always a question of fact, and does not give rise to a question of law. Moreover, whether an investment is satisfactorily explained or not with evidence in a given case is a question of facts and does not require a reference to the Honble High Court. In this way all the questions in R. A. No. 86/JP/1992 and question No. 1 in R. A. No. 87/JP/1992 are rejected.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 6 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs Bohra Film Finance on 16 March, 1983

(b) Alternatively, even treating the Explanation as dealing with both the ingredients (i) and (ii) set out above, where the circumstances do not lead to the reasonable and positive inference that the assessees's explanation is false, the assessee must be held to have proved that there was no fraud or gross or wilful neglect on his part. Even in his view of the matter the Explanation cannot justify the levy of a penalty. (p. 1212) We may also refer to the case of Noor Mohd. & Co. (supra). That is a case where the assessee failed to maintain quantitative details and the estimate of income was made. The ITO applied the Explanation but their Lordships upheld the view of the Tribunal that Explanation cannot be invoked in such circumstances. In fact in this case the Hon'ble High Court refused reference on the application of the revenue. In the case before us, the assessee failed to produce certain materials required by the ITO and therefore the ITO proceeded to make the assessment ex parte and estimate was resorted to. The assessee has not committed any fraud nor can it be said that it has committed gross or wilful neglect in filing the return. All that happened was that he was not able to substantiate its return. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the burden that lay on the assessee is deemed to have been discharged. There was nothing else for the assessee to do in order to get over the Explanation. Thus, in our opinion the Explanation also cannot be invoked. Accordingly, we are of the view that the extended period of limitation provided under Section 153(1)(6) also has no application.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 42 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Lake Palace Hotels & Motels Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Wealth Tax on 22 September, 2000

14. The learned counsel for the assessee has cited the case of CWT v Akshay Kumar Sanghi (supra) and drawn our attention towards the two judgments--Noor Mohd. & Co.'s case (supra) and Addl CIT v. Gem Palace (1975) 98 ITR 640 (Raj) referred by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court on page No. 49. However, it is observed that the set of facts involved therein appears to be entirely different from the facts of the instant case, and hence cannot be applied here.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Govindram M. Oberoi vs Income Tax Officer. on 23 April, 1996

25. I have examined the various facts and the arguments. Before coming to the actual conclusions, it is necessary to keep at the back of ones mind certain well established principles. It is now settled law that since the relevant facts are within the knowledge of the assessee, the facts are primarily to be proved by the assessee. The evidence may be direct or circumstantial or both. In some instances even a mere statement of the assessee may be enough but in some other cases such self-exculpatory statement or explanation may not be enough. The cumulative impact of all the facts must be taken into account [see Addl. CIT vs. Noor Mohd. & Co. (1974) 97 ITR 705 (Raj)].
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Govindram M. Oberoi vs Income Tax Officer on 23 April, 1996

25. I have examined the various facts and the arguments. Before coming to the actual conclusions, it is necessary to keep at the back of one's mind certain well established principles. It is now settled law that since the relevant facts are within the knowledge of the assessee, the facts are primarily to be proved by the assessee. The evidence may be direct or circumstantial or both. In some instances even a mere statement of the assessee may be enough but in some other cases such self-exculpatory statement or explanation may not be enough. The cumulative impact of all the facts must be taken into account [see Addl. CIT vs. Noor Mohd. & Co. (1974) 97 ITR 705 (Raj)].
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 15 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Gem Palace on 13 August, 1974

6. We are further of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the question whether there was any concealment of income and whether there was any fraud or gross or wilful neglect in the filing of the proper return of its income on the part of the assessee is essentially a question of fact and from the finding of the Tribunal, set out above, it cannot be said that the Tribunal was not mindful of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was on account of the very fact that the returned income was less than 80% of the income assessed that the proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated by the Income-tax Officer and referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The facts of this case are similar to those of Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. Noor Mohd. & Co., [1974] 97 ITR 705 (Rai)and it would be pertinent to quote the following observations made in that case :
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 10 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Smt. Gulab Sundari Bai Bapna vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 March, 1980

7. If the returned income is less than 80% of the assessed income and the amount assessed is proved by the department to represent the income of the assessee, the Explanation puts the burden squarely on the assessee to show that there was no fraud or gross or wilful neglect on his part in furnishing his return. In Addl. CIT v. Noor Mohd. & Co. [1974] 97 ITR 705 (Raj), this court held that the Explanation raises a rebuttable presumption and that in the ultimate analysis the question which confronted the Tribunal in such matters was whether the facts and circumstances appearing on the records of the case are adequate to presume fraud or wilful or gross neglect. If the Tribunal found the same in the negative, the presumption stood rebutted.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - N M Kasliwal - Full Document
1   2 3 Next