Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.35 seconds)
Kanaiyalal C. Thakor, Valsad vs Assessee cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Prathi Hardware Stores on 8 February, 1993

5.7 The explanation of the assessee for the purpose of avoidance of penalty must be an acceptable explanation; it should not be fantastic or fanciful one. Otherwise, the consequence follows as a matter of law. The burden is on the assessee. If he fails to discharge the burden, the presumption that he had concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof is available to be drawn [CIT v. Prathi Hardware Stores (1993) 203 ITR 641, 649-50 (Ori)] 5.8 Mere offering of an explanation would not absolve an assessee from the liability of penalty.
Orissa High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 36 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Tarlochan Singh And Sons (Huf) vs Income Tax Officer on 21 September, 2007

Since it was not clear whether the AO intended to levy penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars or for concealment of income, penalty order is required to be quashed in view of decision in CIT v. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj), Navinbhai M. Patel v. ITO (1988) 27 ITD 411 (Ahd-Trib); and Tarlochan Singh & Sons (HUF) Vs. ITO (2008) 114 TTJ 82. As regards merit of penalty, the assessee submitted that right from the beginning, assessee's income has been accepted by the department and even in subsequent years also, such income is accepted. Besides the agricultural land is an ancestral property of the assessee and therefore , there is no case for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of the income which empowered the AO to levy penalty.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 27 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

National Textiles vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 9 October, 2000

235.As regards freight receipts and expenses, the assessee submitted that the assessee is not liable to show any income in his ROI, pertaining to TDS & therefore, question of treating Rs.32,371/- as assessee's income doesn't arise. Likewise w.r.t. freight expenses, the entries identified by the AO in para no.3 of assessment order were mere J.V. entries for which no claim of expenses was made by the assessee in his P & L A/c. As regards cash credit of Rs.1,01,000/- , the assessee mentioned that the assessee having filed loan confirmation of Smt. Nina @ Ami R. Desai being spouses by relation & both above cheques having issued from their joint bank account while error was committed by the accountant in mentioning the name of the depositor, penalty could not be levied in view of decisions in the case of National Textiles v. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 125 (Guj),Shri Nirmal Commercial Ltd vs CIT (2008) 218 CIT (Bom) 581; and ITO Vs. 8 ITA No.635/Ahd/2006 Rakesh Gupta 107 TTJ (Asr.Trib) 909. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. while supporting the impugned order contended that malafide intention is not relevant for imposing the penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 208 - D M Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 April, 1991

235.As regards freight receipts and expenses, the assessee submitted that the assessee is not liable to show any income in his ROI, pertaining to TDS & therefore, question of treating Rs.32,371/- as assessee's income doesn't arise. Likewise w.r.t. freight expenses, the entries identified by the AO in para no.3 of assessment order were mere J.V. entries for which no claim of expenses was made by the assessee in his P & L A/c. As regards cash credit of Rs.1,01,000/- , the assessee mentioned that the assessee having filed loan confirmation of Smt. Nina @ Ami R. Desai being spouses by relation & both above cheques having issued from their joint bank account while error was committed by the accountant in mentioning the name of the depositor, penalty could not be levied in view of decisions in the case of National Textiles v. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 125 (Guj),Shri Nirmal Commercial Ltd vs CIT (2008) 218 CIT (Bom) 581; and ITO Vs. 8 ITA No.635/Ahd/2006 Rakesh Gupta 107 TTJ (Asr.Trib) 909. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. while supporting the impugned order contended that malafide intention is not relevant for imposing the penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 52 - Full Document

Sh. Parminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi vs Acit, New Delhi on 2 August, 2018

235.As regards freight receipts and expenses, the assessee submitted that the assessee is not liable to show any income in his ROI, pertaining to TDS & therefore, question of treating Rs.32,371/- as assessee's income doesn't arise. Likewise w.r.t. freight expenses, the entries identified by the AO in para no.3 of assessment order were mere J.V. entries for which no claim of expenses was made by the assessee in his P & L A/c. As regards cash credit of Rs.1,01,000/- , the assessee mentioned that the assessee having filed loan confirmation of Smt. Nina @ Ami R. Desai being spouses by relation & both above cheques having issued from their joint bank account while error was committed by the accountant in mentioning the name of the depositor, penalty could not be levied in view of decisions in the case of National Textiles v. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 125 (Guj),Shri Nirmal Commercial Ltd vs CIT (2008) 218 CIT (Bom) 581; and ITO Vs. 8 ITA No.635/Ahd/2006 Rakesh Gupta 107 TTJ (Asr.Trib) 909. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. while supporting the impugned order contended that malafide intention is not relevant for imposing the penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 38 - Full Document

Shri.P.Madhusudhan vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 11 June, 2019

It is now well settled that explanation 1 to sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act automatically comes into operation when in respect of any facts material to the computation of total income of any assessee, there is failure to offer an explanation or an explanation is offered which is found to be false by the Assessing Officer or an explanation is offered, which is not substantiated. In such a case, the amount added in computing the total income is deemed to represent the income in respect of which the particulars have been concealed and, consequently, the assessee becomes liable to the penalty provided by section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In nutshell ,the explanation shifts the burden of proof on the assessee. [K.P.Madhusudnan Vs. CIT,251 ITR 99(SC). In the present case, the assessment had been completed 9 ITA No.635/Ahd/2006 on an income of Rs. 5,01,950/- as against returned income of only Rs.2,20,290/- and undisputedly, the onus was on the assessee to submit an explanation in respect of the difference. Therefore, on receipt of the showcause notice, the assessee was required to submit his explanation on the amount of difference between the returned income and assessed income. However, the assessee merely requested for keeping the penalty proceedings in abeyance and the AO did not pursue the matter further and without having any explanation from the assessee imposed the penalty. It can not be said that in such circumstances the assessee had been given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the order imposing penalty was passed. Moreover, admittedly whatever reply or details have been submitted , these were submitted before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) without confronting the said reply and details to the AO, passed the impugned order. In this connection , it may be pointed out that the rules of natural justice are not codified nor are they unvarying in all situations, rather they are flexible. They may, however, be summarized in one word : fairness. In other words, what they require is fairness by the authority concerned. Of course, what is fair would depend on the situation and the context. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that a mere ritual or empty formality will not be an opportunity as contemplated by law. It will be a "pretence" or "make believe". This is not a case of a mere routine or simple matter..Over the years by a process of judicial interpretation two rules have been evolved as representing the principles of natural justice in judicial process, including therein quasi judicial and administrative process. They constitute the basic elements of fair hearing, having their roots in the innate sense of man for fairplay and justice. Justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 15 - Full Document
1