Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.58 seconds)The Finance Act, 2018
Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Coinage Act, 2011
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Jaswant Rai. on 31 October, 1996
In 142
CTR 49 (P&H) in the case of CIT Vs Jaswant Rai the issue related to 'agreed
additions' whereas in the present case the issue relates to disclosure made by
13
the assessee u/s i32(4) of the Income Tax Act,1961. Under any circumstances,
considering the facts of the case, after insertion of Explanation 5A of the
section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with effect from 1st June, 2007
the case laws cited by the assessee can not be relied upon.
Sudarshan Silks & Sarees vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karnataka on 11 April, 2008
The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has rendered the decision, in the case of
Sudershan Silk & Sarees (supra), for assessment year 1984-85
to 1987-88, in the context of the facts obtaining in that case.
The findings of the Tribunal were upheld by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. In this case, Hon'ble Tribunal upheld the
findings of the CIT(A) and recorded that although there was
nothing on record to show that assessee was given assurance
that no penalty would be levied, the facts clearly suggested
that such an inducement must have been given by the
searching party, that only partial evidence in respect of
concealment for a very limited period was detected, there was
no reason why any person would go to offer much higher
amount for a large number of years. In opinion of the
Tribunal, it was found not a fit case, for levy of penalty u/s
271(1)(c) of the Act. In the present case, facts are clearly
different and distinguishable. Assessee has declared the
income, in the return filed, in response to Section 153A of the
Act. Declaration of additional income, in the course of
deposition u/s 132(4) of the Act is not relevant in the present
case, in view of the explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) of the
Act inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act 2009, with retrospective
effect from 1.6.2007, as the search was conducted in this
case, on 31.10.2007. Therefore, declaration made in the
statement u/s 132(4) is not relevant, in the context of
25
Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In view of this,
it cannot be said that any inducement or promise was made or
extended by the revenue, to the assessee, for non-levy of
penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, at the time the appellant filed
his return of income, in response to notice issued u/s 153A of
the Act. In the case, relied upon by the assessee, the CIT(A),
has given categorical finding that Explanation 5 to Section
271(1)(c) read with provisions of Section 132(4) are not
applicable in that case. In view of this, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court adjudicated the issue in question on the basis of
relevant and operative penal provisions of the Act, as
applicable at that time. Accordingly, the reliance placed by
the assessee appellant, on the ratio of the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts of the
present case, being factually different and distinguishable.