Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.62 seconds)

Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ilaxi Textiles Industries on 19 October, 1993

12. Coming to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ilaxi Textiles Industries (supra), relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative, we find that the facts of the two cases are distinguishable. In the case of Ilaxi Textile Industries, enquiry by the Revenue had proceeded further, and had reached to a stage where concealment by the assessee had been detected and various statements of third parties to justify the same had also been recorded. Further, one of the technical third party who had given statement against the assessee was also cross-examined by the partner of the assessee-firm. Subsequently, after the cross examination on the date fixed for the next hearing of the case neither the assessee nor his authorised representative appeared before the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the assessee-firm filed a revised return disclosing additional income referable to the enquiry in question under the Amnesty Scheme. For this very reason, subsequent filing of a revised return by the assessee-firm showing therein an additional income and claiming the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme had not been granted and the matter which brought before this Tribunal was upheld in favour of the Revenue. In the case before us, as will be apparent from the facts discussed hereinabove, no such enquiry had been made after the search by the Revenue and moreover as will be observed from the various statements of the partners of the firm and the employee all the statements are vague giving different explanations to the question. The Revenue has, therefore, made no exercise whatsoever to enquire into the matter and unearth facts which would lead to say that unaccounted income did accrue to the firm as stated by the employee Shri Kalyanbhai A. Vora but rejected in toto in the very preliminary statement of the main partner of the firm, viz., Shri G. K. Parikh. The act, therefore, of the assessee-firm of filing a return showing therein an additional income disclosed pursuant to the immunities of the Amnesty Scheme cannot thus be considered as based to be a disclosure by the assessee-firm after detection and thereby estopping the assessee-firm from the immunities as per the Amnesty Scheme.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Anand Kumar Saraf And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Ors. on 29 July, 1993

Moreover, the facts in the case of Anand Kumar Saraf (supra) though being slightly different, wherein the assessee was placed on a much more tight rope than in the present case, has been awarded by the Hon'ble High Court, the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme. Thus, the assessee-firm rightly deserves all the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme and the whole of the amount offered by the assessee-firm as disclosure under the Amnesty Scheme is covered by the immunities envisaged by the said scheme. We accordingly dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue and allow the ground raised by the assessee.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs P.H. Patel on 13 August, 1987

In this we are supported by the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. H. J. Patel (1987) 65 CTR (Guj) 54 : (1987) 168 ITR 472 (Guj) where it has been held that where foundational facts do not exist raising even a remote doubt regarding the genuineness of the firm/or the transactions in question, a second innings should not be permitted to the Revenue as it would result in avoidable hardship and harassment to hundreds of assessees. In the present case the facts have been thoroughly marshalled by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and after hearing detailed arguments from both the sides, put before us we do not feel any necessity to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 10 - Cited by 11 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1