Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.92 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Goetze (India) Ltd. vs Cit on 24 March, 2006
In this respect we pointed out the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC). It was pointed out that once a return of income had been filed, there was no provision under the Income-tax Act to make amendment in the return of income without revising the return. The learned Counsel for the assessee argued that unlike the provisions of Section 139(5) there was no analogous provision in Chapter XIV-B for revision of block return of undisclosed income filed under Section 158BC. That being so any mistake detected in the return for block assessment had to be clarified during the course of block assessment proceedings. This aspect had been brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer but the learned Assessing Officer in the impugned order under Section 158BC at page 18 had held that the contention of the assessee was without merit and the same was not verifiable from the seized books of account. The learned Counsel for the assessee argued that during the course of block assessment proceedings the assessee had already revised and retracted from the sum of Rs. 1,46,000/- included in the block return of undisclosed income.
Dy. Cit vs Sanmukhdas Wadhwani on 22 October, 2002
In support of this contention, the learned Counsel relied upon the decision of IT AT Nagpur Bench in the case of Deputy CIT v. Sanmukhdas Wadhwani reported in 85 ITD 734 (Nag). He also placed reliance on the judgment of Kerala High Court reported in 231 ITR 842. The learned Counsel also argued that the assessee had submitted before the CIT(A) that there was no admitted tax payable under Section 249(4). The learned CIT(A) had wide powers of condonation and even if he held that there was requirement to pay tax on the sum of Rs. 1,46,000/-, he should have granted the assessee an opportunity to make good this deficiency. The learned DR argued that in a case falling under Section 249(4)(a) there was no discretion vested in the learned CIT(A) and the provisions were mandatory. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on the decision of ITAT Mumbai reported in 82 ITD 512 (Mumb). He argued that the defect of nonpayment of tax on admitted income was incurable and therefore, the learned CIT(A) rightly dismissed the assessee's appeal.
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 254 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1