Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.21 seconds)Section 2 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ahmedabad vs Gokuldas Harivallabhdas on 14 March, 1958
As has been rightly observed
by Chagla C.J., in Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad v,
Gokuldas Harivallabhdas (4) the gist of the offence under S.
2 8 ( 1 ) (c) is that the assessee has concealed the
particulars of his income or deliberately furnished
inaccurate particulars of such income and therefore the
department must establish that the receipt of the amount in
dispute ,constitutes income of the assessee. If there is no
evidence on the record except the explanation given by the
assessee which ,explanation has been found to be false it
does not follow that the receipt constitutes his taxable
income.
London Investment And Mortgage Co. Ltd. vs Inland Revenue Commissioners. London ... on 6 December, 1956
In England also it has never been doubted that
such proceedings are penal; Fattorini (Thomas) (Lanchashire)
(Ltd., v. Inland Revenue Commissioner (3).
The next question is that when proceedings under S. 28 are
penal in character what would be the nature of the burden
upon the department for establishing that the assessee is
liable to payment of penalty.
C. A. Abraham, Uppoottil, Kottayam vs The Income-Tax Officer, Kottayam And ... on 29 November, 1960
-machinery of assessment and the penalty was merely an
additional tax imposed in certain circumstances on account
of the assessee's conduct. The justification of this view
was founded on certain observations in C. A. Abraham v.
Income-tax Officer, Kottayam & Anr.(1). It is true that
penalty proceedings under s. 28 are included in the
expression "assessment" and the true nature of penalty has
been held to be additional tax. But one of the principal
objects in enacting S. 28 is to provide a deterrent against
recurrence of default on the part of the assessee. The
section is penal in the sense that its consequences are
intended to be an effective deterrent which will put a Stop
to practices which the legislature considers to be against
the public interest. It is significant that in C. A.
Abraham's(1) case this Court was not called upon to
determine whether penalty proceedings were penal or of quasi
penal nature and the observations made with regard to
penalty being an additional tax were made in a different
context and for a different purpose.
Lal Chand Gopal Das vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P. And ... on 15 March, 1962
In the earlier judgment in Lal Chand Gopal Das v.
Commissioner of Income-tax U.P.(5) the Allahabad court had
said that if a receipt was income but was disguised in the
account or in the return as a non-assessable receipt it was
clearly a case of concealment of the particulars or of
furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and a penalty
under s. 2 8 (1) (c) should be imposed on the assessee.
The first point which falls 'for determination is whether
the imposition of penalty is in the nature of a penal
provision. The determination of the question of burden of
proof will depend largely on the penalty proceedings being
penal in nature or being merely meant for imposition of an
additional tax,, the liability to pay such tax having been
designated as penalty under s. 28. One line of argument
which has prevailed particularly with the Allahabad High
Court in Lal Chand Gopal Das(5) cage is that there was no
essential difference between tax and penalty because the
liability for payment of both was imposed as a part of the-
(1) 34 I.T.R. 98.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat vs L.H. Vora on 21 September, 1964
As no satisfactory evidence had been
produced by the department to establish
4 49
that the amount in question represented the income of the
assessee the Tribunal held that no penalty could be imposed.
Now penalty can be imposed under s. 28 (1) (c) if the Income
tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the
Appellate Tribunal in the course of any proceedings under
the Income-tax Act 1922 is satisfied that any person "has
concealed the particulars of his income or deliberately
furnished inaccurate particulars of such income". In the
judgment under appeal reference has been made to the
decisions of the various High Courts on the true ambit and
scope of this provision and the burden in the matter of
establishing concealment of particulars of income or
deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars of such
income. The majority of High Courts, namely, Bombay in
Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad v. Gokuldas
Harivallabhdas(1), Gujarat in Commissioner of Income-tax
Gujarat v. L. H. Vora (2 ) and Patna in Commissioner of
Income-tax Bihar & Orissa v. Mohan Mallah(3) had expressed
the view that proceedings under s. 28 ( 1 ) (c) were of a
penal nature and it was for the department to establish that
the assessee was guilty of concealment of, the particulars
of income. The mere fact that the assessee had given a
false explanation did not prove that the receipt necessarily
constituted income of the assessee.