Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.46 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Saran Khandsari Sugar Works on 21 September, 1999
20. The case of CIT vs Saran Khandsari Sugar Works (supra) is a case
where income was estimated without any basis. Hence, this case is on
different facts and of no help to the assessee.
Income Tax Officer vs Dr. Sameer Kant Agarwal on 11 May, 2007
In ITO vs Dr. Sameer Kant Aggarwal (supra), the penalty levied by
the department was deleted as the AO had failed to prove by independent
material that assessee had concealed his income or had furnished inaccurate
particulars of income. But, in the instant case before us, the AO has been
able to bring on record the incriminating material even as to very existence
or identity of the depositors, and the genuineness of the transaction.
T.A. Mahomed Usman vs State Of Madras Represented By Secy. To ... on 17 November, 1959
"Voluntary - Of one's free will, impulse of
choice; not constringed by another; acting
voluntarily or willingly [S. 2(2), Sale of
Goods Act]; [Art. 101(3), prov., Const.]
Voluntary - The expression `voluntary' is
used in this section to mean `naturalisation'
in the narrow sense of that term and
excluding compulsory, involuntary of
collective naturalization which some states
have adopted at different times. T.E.
Mohomed Usman vs. State of Madras, AIR
18
1961 Mad 129, 138. [Citizenship Act, 1955,
S. 9(1)]
"Means doing of something as the result of
the free exercise of the will but not
something done under a legal duty."
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs K.B.H.M.D.H. Bhiwandiwalla & Co. on 17 December, 1968
15. The next contention of the assessee that the assessee has surrendered
the amount only with a condition that no penalty under section 271(1)(c)
shall be levied, has also no merit. It is not in dispute that in the assessee's
letter dated 26.9.2008 the assessee has submitted that the assessee has
surrendered the amount with the condition that no penalty proceedings
should be initiated against it. However, this condition was not accepted by
20
the AO while making the assessment where the AO has categorically
observed that this plea of the assessee company cannot be accepted on the
ground that the income surrendered by the assessee company was not
voluntarily but the said amount was surrendered because of detection made
by the Department through enquiries conducted by it. Thus, on facts, this
contention of the assessee also fails. Moreover, mere because the assessee
had agreed to the addition subject to the condition that penalty under sec.
271(1)(c) would not be levied shall not preclude the department from
proceeding to levy the penalty in view of the settled position of law that
there cannot be estoppel against the Statute and the assessee's explanation
regarding the addition had to be considered by the AO independently as so
observed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. D.K.B. &
Co. (2000) 243 ITR 618 (Ker.). Since, in the present case, the addition has
been made on the basis of the enquiry conducted by the AO and not merely
on the basis of disclosure made by the assessee agreeing to the addition, the
condition imposed by the assessee that no penalty under sec. 271(1)(c)
should be levied, has no force in the eyes of law. Hence, this contention of
the assessee is also rejected. The various decisions cited by the learned
counsel for the assessee in support of the contention that no penalty under
sec. 271(1)(c) should be imposed in the case of conditional surrender would
21
not advance any further the assessee's case inasmuch as all those cases
relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee were rendered in the
different context as discussed hereunder.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Suresh Chandra Mittal on 26 July, 2001
In the case of CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal (supra), the income was
offered to tax in the return filed in response to the notice issued by the AO.
However, in the present case, in the return of income the assessee has not
offered the aforesaid amount of Rs.6 lacs as income liable to tax but the said
concealed income has been detected by the AO after making necessary
enquiries as a result of which the assessee had no other alternative but to
surrender the same to the department. Therefore, this case is of no help to
the assessee.
Jaswant Rai Mittal And Co. And Ors. vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 11 September, 1991
17. The assessee has mainly relied upon the decision of ITAT, Delhi
Bench, Delhi in the case of Smt. Raj Rani Mittal vs. ITO reported in (2010)
36 SOT 4 (Del) (URO). However, this case gives no assistance to the
assessee's case. In that case, the AO just made the addition on the basis of
surrender made by the assessee and the AO did not bother to issue summons
to the parties so that they could be brought on record as witnesses of the
revenue to prove that the assessee had concealed the income. In that case,
the assessee had taken unsecured loans from 2 persons. The addition was
made by the AO on the basis of surrender made by the assessee. In other
22
words, the addition was made on agreed basis and the AO had failed to bring
any material on record to support the addition. In that case, the assessee
submitted affidavits of the loan creditors. However, the assessee
surrendered the income as she could not produce the parties living at Delhi
at far away place of Rudrapur, and, therefore, on the basis of surrender the
AO made the addition. However, the facts of the present case are quite
distinct to the aforesaid case cited by the learned counsel for the assessee
inasmuch as, in the present case, the assessee has not furnished any iota of
evidence as to identity and existence of the alleged creditors nor furnished
any confirmation from the respective parties. The assessee has not furnished
particulars of their identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the
transaction. The payments were also received in cash though, in the case
relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee, the payments were
received by account payee cheque and deposited in the assessee's bank
account. In the present case, the addition has been made on the basis of
incriminating material collected by the Assessing Officer and not merely on
the basis of the surrender made by the assessee. Therefore, this case is also
of no help to the assessee rather it supports revenue's case.