Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Suresh Chandra Mittal on 26 July, 2001
It comes within the ambit of the decision laid down in the case of CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal (supra).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.81 seconds)M/S. K.P. Madhusudhanan vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cochin on 21 August, 2001
13. Adverting to the decision of the apex Court rendered in the case of K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT (supra), learned Departmental Representative submitted that this decision was rendered on 21st Aug., 2001. Hence, the ratio of this decision is to be followed. In this case, assessee took certain bank drafts for payments to suppliers of rice in Andhra Pradesh. Entries were made in the accounts not on the dates on which the drafts were obtained but a few days later. It was explained that sufficient cash balance was not available on those dates. Loans were obtained from friends. These loans were payable within a short time, as such no entries were made in the books. Since the assessee was unable to furnish evidence of such loans, it offered the amount for addition. Penalty proceedings were initiated. AO did not accept the explanation of the assessee. Penalty was imposed. The Tribunal cancelled the penalty on the ground that in the notice initiating penalty proceedings assessee was not . intimated about the proposed action under Expln. 1(B) to Section 271(1)(c). High Court held the imposition of penalty valid.
Section 273A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 April, 1982
Apex Court affirmed the decision of the High Court, Apex Court has held that by reason of the addition of Explanation to Section 271(1)(c), the view taken in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT (supra), can no longer be said to be applicable. The implication of this decision is that if the case of the assessee comes within the ken of Explanation, then shelter of Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd's decision cannot be taken. However, if assessee's explanation is found not to be false and bona fide is proved, then there can be no penalty for concealment.
Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Orient Trading Company vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat, ... on 14 September, 1984
6. During the course of hearing before us, the learned authorised representative of the assessee addressed us at large on the merits of the case and relied upon large number of Court pronouncements. In nutshell, the learned authorised representative of the assessee argued that merely because assessee's explanation regarding cash credit was not accepted, did not justify levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee had agreed to assessment of additional income only with a view to buy peace and the same did not signify admission of any concealed income on the part of the assessee. He argued that after considerable length of time, the assessee could not be burdened with the onus to prove the cash credits. A number of case laws were relied upon for these propositions. He in particular emphasised the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC); S. Hastimal v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 273 (Mad) and judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Orient Trading Co. v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom). In addition, the learned authorised representative of the assessee contended before us that he was supplied copies of the statements of these four cash creditors, which had been recorded behind the back of the assessee, only on 20th March, 1992, while the impugned penalty orders had been made by the AO on 31st March, 1992. The assessee was, therefore, not granted proper opportunity to rebut the inferences drawn by the AO on the basis of the statements which had been recorded behind the back of the assessee.
Kumar Agencies (India) vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 27 November, 2002
REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 255(4) OF THE IT ACT, 1961
Since there is a difference of opinion vis-a-vis conclusions arrived at in ITA Nos. 2418 & 2419/Bom/1995 in the case of Kumar Agencies (India) v. Asstt. CIT, Circle-19(2), Bombay, involving asst. yrs. 1980-81 and 1982-83, we are of the opinion that the following point of difference is required to be referred to the Third Member and for the purpose we direct that the file be put up to the Hon'ble President :
Amal Kumar Chakraborty vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 13 August, 1992
10. Apropos the shifting and weighing of evidence, the law in this regard is canonized in the dictum : "Falsus in uno, Falsus in omnibus". False in one thing, false in everything. This maxim relates to credibility of witnesses, for a witness caught telling a lie in one thing discredits himself in regard to the rest of his testimony. Although the doctrine of Falsus in Uno, Falsus in omnibus is applicable in criminal law, in the case of Amal Kumar Chakraborty v. CIT (1994) 207 ITR 376, 390 (Cal) it was held that this doctrine is a sound principle to apply in taxation when the matter is one of finding of fact on the basis of statements of a witness and their judicial evaluation. In this case, in 1975, the assessee gave a false statement by stating that he had no connection with the bank deposits, Later he made a volte face and said that the deposits were from the money supposedly declared in 1971. Therefore, the later statement of the assessee could not be held to be credited as the source of the deposit.
Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay vs M/S Abdulbhai Faizullabhai & Ors on 10 March, 1976
14. The apex Court in the case of Mumbai .Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai Firzullabhai AIR 1976 SC 1455 (at pp. 1467-68) has held that the ruling of a superior Court is not of scriptural sanctity but it is of ratio-wise luminosity within the edifice of facts where the judicial lamp plays the legal flame. Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough, because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such case, one should avoid temptation as said by Cardozo, by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another.