Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.36 seconds)Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Kishorekumar Shamji on 18 December, 1999
5. Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, is attracted where in the course of any proceedings under the Act, the AO or the first appellate authority is satisfied that (a) any person has concealed particulars of his income, or (b) has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The expressions "has concealed" and "has furnished inaccurate particulars" have not been defined either in the section or elsewhere in the Act. The, scope of this provision came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court in CIT v. Kishorekumar Shamji (supra). Bench held proviso to Expln. 1 is concerned only with cases coming under Clause (B) of the Explanation, where the assessee offered an explanation which he was not able to substantiate. The explanation of the assessee for the purpose of avoidance of penalty must be an acceptable explanation; it should not be a fantastic or fanciful one. As indicated above, consequence follows as a matter of law. The burden is on the assessee. If he fails to discharge that burden, the presumption that he had concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof is available to be drawn. The principal logical import of the Explanation is to shift the burden of proof from the Revenue on to the assessee. Rebuttal must be on materials relevant and cogent. Only if the initial burden is discharged the assessee would get out of the mischief.
Niranjan & Co. P. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, West ... on 19 March, 1986
4. Counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the assessee had not disclosed the income by way of investment in vehicles and landed properties. Only after search was conducted the assessee first made the declaration under Section 273A. Counsel further submitted that even without the aid of the Explanation the main provision of Section 271(1)(c) would be sufficient to justify the penalty. Counsel also placed reliance on various decisions such as Niranjan & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 159 ITR 153 (SC), N. Sundareswaran v. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 173 (Ker), Western Automobiles v. CIT (1978) 112 ITR 1048 (Bom), CIT v. A. Sreenivasa Pai (2000) 242 ITR 29 (Ker), CIT v. K.P. Madhushudhanan (2000) 246 ITR 218 (Ker), CIT v. Kishorekumar Shamji (2000) 244 ITR 702 (Ker). etc.
Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 April, 1982
In (2000) 246 ITR 218 (Ker) (supra) also following the decision in Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. and Am. v. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC) this Court held that there may be several reasons for which the assessee may have offered an amount for addition, but that itself is not sufficient to infer concealment. It has not laid down as a rule of general application that whenever such is the case, penalty cannot be imposed. This Court held that on the contrary in such cases also the assessee is required to discharge the burden placed by the Explanation appended to Section 271(1)(c). In case an explanation is offered, the AO is to examine it, find out whether the assessee has been able to establish that there was no concealment.
M/S. K.P. Madhusudhanan vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cochin on 21 August, 2001
This (sic--apex) Court in K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC) held that the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) is a part of Section 271. When the AO or the AAC issues a notice under Section 271, he makes the assessee aware that the provisions thereof are to be used against him. These provisions include the Explanation. By virtue of the notice under Section 271 the assessee is put to notice that if he does not prove, in the circumstances stated in the Explanation, that his failure to return his correct income was due to fraud or neglect, he shall, therefore, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof, and consequently be liable to the penalty under the section.
N. Sundareswaran vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 June, 1996
4. Counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the assessee had not disclosed the income by way of investment in vehicles and landed properties. Only after search was conducted the assessee first made the declaration under Section 273A. Counsel further submitted that even without the aid of the Explanation the main provision of Section 271(1)(c) would be sufficient to justify the penalty. Counsel also placed reliance on various decisions such as Niranjan & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 159 ITR 153 (SC), N. Sundareswaran v. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 173 (Ker), Western Automobiles v. CIT (1978) 112 ITR 1048 (Bom), CIT v. A. Sreenivasa Pai (2000) 242 ITR 29 (Ker), CIT v. K.P. Madhushudhanan (2000) 246 ITR 218 (Ker), CIT v. Kishorekumar Shamji (2000) 244 ITR 702 (Ker). etc.
Western Automobiles (India) vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 17 December, 1976
In (2000) 246 ITR 218 (Ker) (supra) also following the decision in Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. and Am. v. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC) this Court held that there may be several reasons for which the assessee may have offered an amount for addition, but that itself is not sufficient to infer concealment. It has not laid down as a rule of general application that whenever such is the case, penalty cannot be imposed. This Court held that on the contrary in such cases also the assessee is required to discharge the burden placed by the Explanation appended to Section 271(1)(c). In case an explanation is offered, the AO is to examine it, find out whether the assessee has been able to establish that there was no concealment.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs A. Sreenivasa Pai on 1 November, 1999
4. Counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the assessee had not disclosed the income by way of investment in vehicles and landed properties. Only after search was conducted the assessee first made the declaration under Section 273A. Counsel further submitted that even without the aid of the Explanation the main provision of Section 271(1)(c) would be sufficient to justify the penalty. Counsel also placed reliance on various decisions such as Niranjan & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1986) 159 ITR 153 (SC), N. Sundareswaran v. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 173 (Ker), Western Automobiles v. CIT (1978) 112 ITR 1048 (Bom), CIT v. A. Sreenivasa Pai (2000) 242 ITR 29 (Ker), CIT v. K.P. Madhushudhanan (2000) 246 ITR 218 (Ker), CIT v. Kishorekumar Shamji (2000) 244 ITR 702 (Ker). etc.
1