Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)
Continental Commercial Corporation vs Income-Tax Officer And Anr. on 9 January, 1975 cites

Commissioner Of Gift-Tax vs C. Muthukumaraswamy Mudaliar on 23 September, 1974

diction. The learned counsel for the revenue did not say from what date the amended provision would take effect, if it is to be given retrospective operation. If the retrospective operation is given from the inception of the Act in 1962, then, many of the proceedings of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner completed prior to the amendment would also be without jurisdiction. If the submission of the learned counsel for the revenue is that it is retroactive in the sense that it would apply only to a pending proceeding, then that point also is covered by the decision of this court in Commissioner of Gift-tax v. C. Muthukumaraswamy Mudaliar, [1975] 98 ITR 540 (Mad) (T. C. No. 242 of 1968), where a similar provision was held not retroactive. We, therefore, hold that the provision of Section 274(2) as it stood prior to its amendment on April 1, 1971, was the relevant provision that was applicable to the instant case. If that is so, it is not disputed that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction in this case, and that, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
Madras High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 17 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs K. R. M. T. T. Thiagaraja Chetty & Co on 14 October, 1953

In Commissioner of Income-tax v. R.K. Saraf, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the provisions relating to the penalty are of penal character and their object being to punish the assessee so as to deter him from transgressing the law in future, the quantum of penalty would have to be determined with reference to the law prevailing on the date when the act of concealment was committed and not when the penalty proceedings are initiated or completed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 128 - G Hasan - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Bhan Singh Boota Singh on 25 April, 1972

That was also the view expressed by the Punjab High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhan Singh Boota Singh, [I974] 95 ITR 562 (Punj). In fact, we find a circular of the Board of Revenue dated July 6, 1968, referred to in that judgment, is also to the effect that with reference to an offence under Section 271(1), the provision as amended in April, 1968, would apply only to a case where a return was filed after that date. We have, therefore, no doubt, that, to the instant case, the law that was in force on December 23, 1970, when the return was filed, is the one that would be applicable.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax West Bengal vs Anwar Ali on 29 April, 1970

There is no dispute that the assessment order had now become final. In the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c), the petitioner was called upon by a notice to make such representations as he may like and produce such other evidence as he may have. The petitioner filed an objection to these proceedings in which he had taken a legal plea that the mere fact that the assessee was not able to prove the genuineness of the credit entry in the assessment proceedings, did not attract the provision of Section 271(1)(c). He also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anwar Ali, and contended that the burden is on the department to prove the deliberate concealment of the assessee and the Income-tax Officer merely on the ground that bis explanation is not acceptable could not levy the penalty. Though he had also made a complaint in the objections that he did not have enough time to produce necessary evidence in the assessment proceedings he did not choose to produce any further evidence in the penalty proceedings as well. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer proceeded with whatever material that was available. He again considered that the statement of the assessee that the credit entry of Rs. 4,000 represented a hand-loan from Mr. Parekh could not be accepted especially when the cash position as on that date showed that but for the credit there would have been a deficit cash balance. Finding that the assessee concealed an income to the extent of Rs. 4,000, the Income-tax Officer levied a sum of Rs. 4,000 as penalty which is the minimum that could be levied under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras. Before the revisional authority, the petitioner produced a letter from one Ganshyamlal R. Parekh of Ahmedabad which was to the effect that he had given the loan in question to the petitioner while he was in Madras on visits. The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax observed that there was no means of verifying the genuineness of that letter and there was also no explanation as to why the confirmation from the said Parekh could not be produced at the time of hearing in connection with the penalty order. With respect to the contention of the assessee that the onus was on the department to prove the concealment of income, the revisional authority was of the view that since the word " deliberately " was deleted by a later amendment of Section 271(1)(c), the onus was not on the department to prove that the concealment was deliberate. The revisional authority was also of the view that the non-acceptability of the explanation leads to the logical inference that if a genuine explanation was given it would have been to the disadvantage of the assessee. For these reasons, he confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer levying a penalty of Rs. 4,000. It is against these orders that the present writ petition has been filed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 577 - A N Grover - Full Document
1