Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax vs T.J. Mathai on 3 June, 2004

Vivek Karan, Bangalore vs Assessee

(iii) CIT v. T.J. Mathai 269 ITR 492 (Ker) : In this case, it was held by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court that after coming into force of Explanation 271(1)(c) the burden is on the assessee to show that there is no concealment of any particulars of income. The facts of the case shows that the assessee was not able to establish that he was not in receipt of certain ITA No.104/Bang/09 Page 6 of 6 income which was exposed pursuant to the search operations in his premises. Therefore it is evident that the facts and circumstances of the case are different from the case in hand.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Integra India Group Company Ltd.,, ... vs Assessee on 11 June, 2010

11.7 In CIT vs. T.J. Mathai 269 ITR 492 (ker) on which ld. DR has relied upon, the facts were that assessee filed return showing NIL income whereas income was assessed at Rs.3,85,725/-. The AO levied the penalty for concealment which was cancelled by ld. CIT(A) and his order was upheld by the Tribunal. Hon. High Court held that explanation to section 271(1)(c) attracted in such case and the burden shifted on the assessee, was not discharged.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lilaben Labhubhai Lakhani, Surat vs Assessee

The burden is on the assessee to show ITA No.453 and 171/Ahd/2008 7 Labhubhai Dharamshibhai Lakhani & Anr Vs ITO, W-9(2), Surat that there was no concealment of any particulars of any income (CIT Vs. T. J. Mathai (2004) 269 ITR 492 (Kerala) in which the appellant has miserably failed in the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore AO's action of levying the penalty is upheld.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sanghvi Swiss Refills P. Ltd, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 7 March, 2007

In T.J. Mathai (supra), the assessee had filed a return showing Nil income whereas the income was assessed at Rs.3,85,725/-. It has been held that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the Explanation does not come into play. As per the Explanation, the burden is on the assessee. The Tribunal should have decided the appeal in the light of the Explanation to sec.271(1)(c) and hence, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to consider the matter in the light of the direction given by Their Lordships.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vasant C.Soni, Baroda vs Department Of Income Tax on 22 March, 2006

3. The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty on the ground that it was a best judgement assessment in which the income was determined by estimate, without appreciating that Explanation 1 to section 271 (2) ( c ) takes care of such situation as settled in the case of CIT Vs T.J. Mathai 269 492 (Ker) and CIT Vs Smt. Shakuntala Devi 270 ITR 590 (Raj)."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit, Villupuram vs D.Santha, Kallakurichi on 27 September, 2017

1593, 1828 & 1829& 1803/Mds/2016 survey materials are above one crore. The assessee has also estimated her gross receipt above one crore, which is giving a clear impression that to avoid paying the taxes she deliberately not maintained proper accounts, even though she is liable to maintain proper books and required them to get audited u/s. 44AB. The assessee's contention that she did not have details about her business is a false one is evidenced from the contention that she has taken almost vital details from them during the assessment, revision and reassessment proceedings and the assessing officer also assessed the income for these assessment years based upon such materials. The Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs T.J. Mathai 269 ITR 492 held that an assessment by estimate is as much legal as any other assessment. Once an assessment has been done, whether it is a best judgement assessment or otherwise, the figure assessed must be held to be the income of the assessee. Such an assessment would not affect the levy of penalty. Thus, the additions made in the impugned assessment orders are based on impounded materials which are relevant and such additions have been confirmed in appellate proceedings or accepted by the assessee, as the case may be. Thus, the additions have attained finality. On such facts and circumstances, it is clear that the assessee has concealed the income and its particulars which was unearthed by survey operations only and the assessee has also furnished inaccurate particulars of her income even after the survey which was made good by the A O by using those materials along with other relevant materials. In view of that the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) for both the assessment years are upheld and all other grounds of the assessee are treated as dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1