Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.26 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Maney And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala. on 30 October, 1961
11. Now coming to the question No. 2. It is true that the penalty proceeding is independent proceeding to the assessment proceeding and it is open to the assessee to adduce fresh evidence to justify its stand that there was no concealment. (Vide judgments Maney And Co. v. CIT, Kerala, reported in 47 ITR, 434, 90 ITR, 139, Raj Paul Oswal v. CWT, reported in 171 ITR, 489, Sharbati Devi Jhalani v. CWT, reported in 159 ITR, 549) but the question for consideration is whether a valuation of property estimated by Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) as confirmed by the Tribunal and has become final in the assessment proceeding can be challenged in the penalty proceeding on the ground of non-compliance of a procedural requirement which was curable in nature.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs H. Abdul Bakshi & Bros. on 28 March, 1986
8. CIT v. H. Abdul Bakshi & Bros., reported in 160 ITR, 94.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Bimal Kumar Damani on 10 February, 2003
9. CIT v. Bimal Kumar Damani, reported in 261 ITR, 87.
Bharat Rice Mills vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 9 May, 2005
12. The reference under Section 16A of the Act to the Valuation Cell depends upon the various circumstances and is a matter of adjudication. It is true that there was a difference in the valuation shown by the assessee and the valuation proposed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) and the assessee had asked for referring the matter to the Valuation Cell, the matter ought to have been referred to the Valuation Cell. The valuation assessed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) without referring the matter to Valuation Cell has been confirmed by the Tribunal in appeal and assessee has accepted the order of the Tribunal and has not challenged further. Therefore, order of Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) and Tribunal had become final. Thus it is implicit that the valuation made by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) has been accepted by the assessee and therefore, it was not open to the assessee to challenge the valuation in a collateral proceeding namely, in penalty proceeding in ITR No. 170 of 1990 in the case of Bharat Rice Mill v. CIT decided on 09.05.2005 assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act was reopened. In the proceeding under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act assessee had not challenged the initiation of the proceeding on the ground that reason has not been recorded before issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. However, in penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act it was raised that the entire proceeding under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act was bad because notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued without recording the reasons, which was condition precedent. Division Bench of this Court after considering the various decisions held that since reassessment order have not been challenged in appeal or in any proceeding, it can not be held to be void order in collateral proceeding. In this view of the matter question No. 2 is answered in negative, i.e. In favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
K.C.K.A. Gupta vs Asstt. Cit on 31 July, 2003
15. A similar provision relating to levy of penalty for the concealment of income exist under the Income Tax Act, 1961 as Section 271(1)(c). Section 271(1)(c) of the Act came up for consideration in the case of K.C. Builders and Ors. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 265 ITR 562. Apex Court observed as follows:
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Gurudayalram Mukhlal on 3 April, 1991
1. CIT v. Gurudayalram Mukhlal, reported in 190 ITR, 39