Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.38 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar on 9 February, 1977
9. When the matter came on appeal before the Tribunal, the learned Judicial Member took the view that penalty was not leviable. His reasoning was that, when the revised return filed by the assessee was, eventually, accepted by the Tribunal as true and correct, it must be held that there was no concealment of income. According to him, that the filing of the revised return was only after the search and the assessee was cornered by the department, was not material. He sought to draw support for his view from the decision of the Madras High Court in Ramdas Pharmacy's case (supra), and, according to him, the other decision of the Madras High Court in J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar's case (supra), did not make any deviation, although the learned Accountant Member was of a different opinion.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Haji P. Mohammed on 10 December, 1980
This is the law enunciated by the Madras High Court, which we have to apply to the facts of this case. The Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Haji P. Mohammed [1981] 132 ITR 623 has also expressed an identical view. After referring to the facts in that case, the Kerala High Court held :
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ramdas Pharmacy on 12 December, 1969
1. I have carefully gone through the order of my learned brother, but I am unable to persuade myself to agree with his reasons and conclusion. Hence, I am recording my order of dissent. The case of the assessee and, also the view of my learned brother, is that the revised return satisfied completely the requirements of Section 139(5) and inasmuch as the income as per the revised return has been accepted by the Tribunal, there is no concealment of income and, hence, the levy of penalty is not called for. In my humble opinion, this is rather oversimplification of the issue involved. The question involved is whether there was concealment of income in the original return of income filed and whether the revised return filed subsequently, was voluntary in nature, so as to exonerate the assessee from the contumacious conduct in not disclosing the true income in the original return. The Madras High Court has observed in the case of Ramdas Pharmacy {supra), it is not as if the revised return filed was of no consequence at all, while considering the liability for penalty for concealment of income under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act, but all the facts and circumstances commencing with the filing of the original return and ending with the assessment may be taken as relevant for the consideration of the assessee's liability for penalty. Therefore, it is essential to take into consideration the facts of this case.
Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Radhey Shyam on 26 September, 1978
CIT v. Radhey Shyam [1980] 123 ITR 125 has also come to the same conclusion. The Allahabad High Court has also pointed out here that the word 'omission' connotes an unintentional act or neglect to perform what the law requires, and the words 'wrong statement' should include within its scope a statement which is not false to the knowledge of the person making it, and the word 'discovers' will take within its ambit that which was hidden, concealed or unknown. The benefit of Section 139(5) cannot be claimed by a person who has filed the first return knowing it to be false.
Section 273A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
F.C. Agarwal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 16 July, 1975
The Kerala High Court has followed the Madras High Court decision in J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar's case (supra), referred to above, and also relied on an earlier decision of the Gauhati High Court in the case of F.C. Agarwal v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 408. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Addl.
1