CA Loan Bajaj Finserv
CA Final Online Classes
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Challenge on facts should be specifically raised by Dept.

LinkedIn


Court :
Supreme Court

Brief :
Where the Dept. is aggrieved by a finding of fact in a decision of the Tribunal, challenge to such finding must be specifically made before the High Court. Where the Dept. solely rests on the voluntary disclosure of income and the same is accepted without linking it to conealed income, penalty shall not be levied.

Citation :
Yet to reprot in Magazines

1 http://www.itatonline.org IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5204-5207 of 2002 PETITIONER: Sudarshan Silks & Sarees RESPONDENT: Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/04/2008 BENCH: ASHOK BHAN & DALVEER BHANDARI J U D G M E N T CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5204-5207 OF 2002 BHAN, J. 1. These appeals have been filed by the assessee against the final judgment and order dated 6th October 2001 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in ITRC Nos. 684/98, 685/98, 686/98 and 687/98 by which the High Court while setting aside the order of assessment passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') and that of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), held that the facts and circumstances of the case warranted levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). 2. The assessment years involved in the present Appeals are 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88. Facts: 3. A search was conducted on the premises of the assesses on 14th and 15th of October, 1987 and incriminating documents evidencing concealment of income by the assessee were unearthed apart from cash and jewellery found at the time of search. It was found that the appellant was maintaining double set of books and was accounting for only 50% of sales in the regular set of books. This fact was admitted by Shri J.S. Ramesh, a partner of the firm in the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. Shri J.S. Ramesh is the person-in-charge of the entire group. The total turn over suppressed by the assessee for the assessment year 1987- 88 was found to be to the tune of Rs.44,07,783/-. These have been discussed in detail in the order of assessment. Assessing Officer estimated that the sales of the assessee were Rs.50,000/- per day, whereas the accounted sales were not found even 50% of the total sales. Apart from this, it was found that certain purchases were also not being accounted for. Similarly certain payments made were not being accounted for. All these were pointed out to the assessee. The assessee came forward with offer of
 

Taxguy
on 25 April 2008
Published in LAW
Views :
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags