Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.55 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii vs Sri Rakesh Suri on 3 February, 2010
7.2 We note that the meaning of word "Voluntarily" has recently
been explained by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of
CIT v. Shri Rakesh Suri vide order dated 13-5-2010 reported in
(2011) 9 Taxmann.com 5 as under:-
Bhairav Lal Verma vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 17 October, 1997
"41. A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case
reported in (1998) 230 ITR 855 : Bhairav Lal Verma v.
Union of India [l998] 230 ITR 855, while interpreting the
word voluntarily given in Section 273(A) of the Act held
that voluntarily means out of free will without any
compulsion. When the assessee concealed the
incriminating material with regard to income so disclosed
cannot be held to be voluntary. It shall be appropriate to
reproduce the relevant portion from the judgment of
Bhairav Lal Verma [1988J 230 ITR 855 (All) as under
T.A. Mahomed Usman vs State Of Madras Represented By Secy. To ... on 17 November, 1959
43. In the Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, meaning
of Voluntary has been given as, to quote Voluntary - Of
one's free will, impulse of choice; not constringed by
another; acting voluntarily or willingly [S 2(2), Sale of
Goods ActJ; [Art. 101 (3), prov., Const.] Voluntary-The
expression 'voluntary is used in this section to some
states have adopted at different times. T.E. Mohomed
Usman v. State of Madras, AIR 1961 Mad 129, 138.
Cit, Ludhiana vs Veena Garg Sansar Chand Prem Nath, Moga on 8 February, 2016
CIT v. Prem Chand Garg (2009) 31 SOT 97
(Delhi)(TM)/ (2009) 123 TTJ (Del)(TM) and that of the Hon'ble
Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Balbir Singh
(2008) 304 ITR 125/ (2007) 164 Taxman 65 (Punj. & Har.).
Banaras State Bank Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Uttar ... on 13 August, 1968
Where the burden of proof in a given case has been
discharged on a set of facts, is also a question of fact. The burden is
cast on the assessee to offer a bona fide explanation. There is also a
plethora of judgments to the effect that findings recorded or
conclusion drawn in deciding the quantum appeal, are neither
23
conclusive nor binding. For this proposition Ld. CIT(A) rightly relied
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT
Vs. Pawan Kumar Dalmia [1987] 168 ITR 1 and the judgment of the
Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Banaras Texturium Vs.
CIT [1988] 169 ITR 782 and also the judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court in the case of CIT V s. Chetandan Lachhmandas [1995]
214 ITR 726 and CIT v. lK. Synthetics Ltd. [1996] 219 ITR 267
(Delhi).
National Textiles vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 9 October, 2000
In National Textiles Vs. CIT
[2001] 249 ITR 125 the Gujarat High Court held that it is not
enough for the purpose of penalty that the amount has been
assessed as income, the circumstances must show that there was
animus i.e. conscious concealment or act of furnishing inaccurate
particulars on the part of the assessee. In the present case, the
assessee's conduct and the explanation offered by it shows that
there was no conscious or intentional act of assessee to conceal or
furnish inaccurate particulars of income.
7.6 In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the
assessee had not furnished the inaccurate particulars of his income
24
when it furnished the return as the assessee has disclosed the
impugned expenses in its Profit and loss account filed along with the
return of income. There is only difference of opinion on the relevant
issues. If an assessee gives an explanation which is unproved but
not disproved i.e., it is not accepted but circumstances do not lead
to the reasonable and positive inference that the assessee's case is
false.
Mak Data P. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii on 30 October, 2013
In view of
above, we note that the case law relied upon by Ld. DR in the case
of Mak Data (P) Ltd. vs. CIT-II (Sura) is relating to voluntary
26
disclosure and hence, distinguished to the facts and circumstances
of the present case. In view of the above, we are of the considered
opinion that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the AO was not justified
in levying penalty u/s. 271(1)© in respect of the said disallowances.
Accordingly, the same was rightly cancelled, which does not need
any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the action of the Ld.
CIT(A) in deleting the penalty in dispute and reject the ground
raised by the assessee.
C.I.T.,Ahmedabad vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd on 17 March, 2010
Hence, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly placed reliance on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance
Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.(2010) 322 ITR 158.
7.7 From the decisions cited above, it can be concluded that mere
disallowance or addition will not be sufficient for levy of penalty u/s.
271(1)(c). Though it may be argued that not filing correct return of
income is equal to filing incorrect return of income and therefore the
assessee can be said to be guilty of filing inaccurate particulars of
income but for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)© this status is not
sufficient. The AO has to show by some positive material with which
he can compare that what was filed by the assessee was inaccurate
or was false leading to the inference that the assessee has
concealed income or filed inaccurate particulars of income. Mere
disallowance or not accepting the claim of the assessee will not be
sufficient. In view of the above and taking into consideration the
fact that the assessee had disclosed all material facts, it is held that
there is no case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate
particulars of its income in respect of the disallowances.