Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.27 seconds)
Shri Mohamed Mohtram Farooqui, ... vs Acit, Circle, Jhunjhunu on 9 December, 2020 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Sas Pharmaceuticals on 8 April, 2011

In terms of section 271(1)(c), it is a settled legal proposition that the concealment of particular of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income has to be seen with reference to return of income filed by the assessee for the impugned assessment year as also reiterated in case of CIT vs SAS Pharmaceuticals (supra), Shree Sai Developers (supra) and Reliance Petroproducts (supra). In case of SAS Pharmaceuticals, the Hon'ble High Court has held that the concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee has to be in the income tax return filed by it. Even if some discrepancies were found during the survey resulting in surrender of income by the assessee, once the assessee has declared the said income in the return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act, then the penalty cannot be levied on the surmises, conjectures and possibilities that the assessee would not have disclosed the income but for survey. In the instant case, the assessee had filed his original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act for the impugned assessment year 93-94 on 26.04.93 declaring total income of Rs 6,09,620/- including cash seized of Rs 5,92,340/-/ and the said return of income has been accepted by the Assessing officer. The seizure and requisition of cash u/s 132A may have occasioned the filing of the return of income, however, where the return of income has been filed at the beginning of the assessment year itself well within time allowed u/s 139(1) and has been accepted by the Assessing officer and there is no adverse findings vis-à-vis cash seized and offered in the return of income, following the settled legal proposition as laid down by the Courts, there is no basis for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act and the same is hereby directed to be deleted.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 97 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs Nurul Huda G. Aboobkar. on 4 March, 1995

19. Now, coming to the contention of the ld DR that sub-section (3) to section 132A has categorically placed requisition proceedings u/s 132A at par with search proceedings u/s 132 and therefore, Explanation 5 applied as much as to section 132A as it does to section 132 of the Act and once reference is made to section 132 then the same is automatically deemed to include reference to section 132A also. We find that similar contention has been advanced in case of ITO vs Nurul Huda G. Aboobkar (supra) before the Bangalore Benches of the Tribunal and the relevant findings of the Coordinate Bench read as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs M/S. Vegetables Products Ltd on 29 January, 1973

16. It is well-settled law that a deeming provision must be construed strictly and if a particular amount of income comes within the strict ambit of such a provision, then and then only the assessee should be made liable under such a provision. The aforesaid rule of strict construction of a statutory provision is applicable with greater force in relation to a penalty provision. Penalty can be levied only if the case clearly and specifically fall within the terms and language of the particular statute. Such provisions should therefore be interpreted on the basis of a plain meaning of the language of the section rather than covering within its ambit. The alternative and doubtful interpretations are based on other connected provisions. Even if it is found that the language of a penalty provision is ambiguous or capable of more than one meaning, then the view which is favourable to the assessee has to be adopted. Such a view is clearly supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192 relied upon by the learned Counsel for the assessee. In the present case, the language of Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) is absolutely clear and it explicitly provides that "where in the course of a search under Section 132", the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, or other valuable articles etc. and such assets have not been disclosed, the assessee shall be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The plain language of the said provision clearly excludes the applicability thereof in a case where the income is represented by an undisclosed assets requisitioned by the IT department from the Enforcement department under Section 132A.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 1168 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1   2 3 Next