Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.53 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Nawn Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 13 June, 1974
This question, whether in cases where proceedings for imposition of penalty had been taken during the course of assessment, two proceedings should be concluded simultaneously, had been argued though from slightly different
point of view in the case of Nawn Estates Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax , which counsel had argued before us a few days ago. It must, however, be mentioned that there the point was that after the completion of the assessment proceedings the penalty proceeding could not have continued. In this case, however, the question is urged in a slightly different form in the sense that according to counsel for the assessee the penalty proceeding must be concluded before the assessment proceedings and if the same were not so concluded, the assessment proceeding could not be completed thereafter. Really the question forms part of the larger aspect whether, in cases where a proceeding had been taken for imposition of penalty, these proceedings must terminate at the equal point of time or whether the penalty proceeding must be completed before the completion of the assessment proceedings.
Section 275 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 131 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S. Killick Nixon & Company vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay on 5 May, 1967
In this connection we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Udhavdas Kewalram v. Commissioner oj Income-tax and also the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Killick Nixon & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax . Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we cannot say that the conclusion reached by the Income-tax Officer and upheld by the Tribunal was not a probable or possible conclusion. So far as the contention of the assessee that Section 2(22)(e)(ii) and Section 2(24) did not include these types of income, it has to be stated that Section 68 is a substantive section making any sum which was found credited in the books of an assessee and the explanation of the assessee in respect thereof was unsatisfactory to be the income of the assessee. Whenever there is a receipt by the assessee, question arises as to its soxirce and nature. The definition sections to which reference has been made by
counsel for the assessee make certain receipts to bear the income character. Furthermore, Section 2(24) of the Act includes the profits and gains, arid Section 68 makes in certain circumstances certain sums to be the profits and gains of an assessee. As mentioned hereinbefore, Section 68 is only a statutory recognition of what was the state of law prior to enactment of Income-tax Act, 1961, established by several judicial decisions. So far as the assessee's contention regarding the balance-sheet is concerned, it, is true that moneys, apart from the capital, had been utilised for the running of the company but that, in our opinion, does not establish that the money that was used by the assessee in his business was borrowed money and not the other money of the assessee. In the premises, we answer the second question in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Satish Churn Law. on 3 May, 1968
6. So far as the third question which has been referred at the instance of the revenue is concerned, in our opinion, the Tribunal came to the right conclusion. Apart from the failure of the assessee to prove the source of the sum, there was no other evidence to show that there was any concealment on the part of the assessee. Counsel for the revenue contended that there was evidence in view of confessions made by some alleged creditors in their own income-tax proceedings. But, as we have mentioned before, these confessions had been made in the proceedings where the assessee was not a party and where the assessee had no opportunity to cross-examine these parties. Furthermore, there is some force in the assessee's contention that the bank statements had not been called for by the Income-tax Officer. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that it has been proved that there was any concealment by the assessee. On the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anwar Mi and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Satish Churn Law [1969] 71 ITR 275 (Cal), we are of the opinion that the Tribunal came to the correct conclusion.