9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assessment of undisclosed income from money-lending and sarafa business based on diary entries, Reassessment proceedings regarding income kept outside books of account, Penalty imposition for concealment of income, Appeal against penalty imposition. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an assessment of a registered firm engaged in money-lending and sarafa business. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initiated proceedings after a diary containing entries of sales of ornaments was found during a search. The ITO concluded that the firm had undisclosed income from the sale of gold ornaments. The firm's explanation that the diary contained records of ornaments taken on approval was not accepted. The ITO assessed the undisclosed income at Rs. 45,000, resulting in a total income of Rs. 74,660. The firm appealed, and the Appellate Authority directed a fresh assessment due to discrepancies in the treatment of customer affidavits. During the reassessment proceedings, the ITO rejected the statements of customers supporting the firm and estimated sales kept outside the books at Rs. 2 lakhs. The firm's income was assessed at Rs. 16,000, with an additional Rs. 15,000 from other sources. The total income was computed at Rs. 60,660. The firm appealed again, and the Appellate Authority sustained an addition of Rs. 8,000 only. The firm did not appeal further. Penalty proceedings for income concealment were initiated, resulting in a penalty of Rs. 31,000. After the appeal against the assessment, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 8,000. The firm appealed the penalty imposition, arguing against its exigibility. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, leading to specific legal questions being referred to the High Court. Regarding the legal questions, the court held that the satisfaction recorded by the ITO in the original assessment order could be the basis for penalty imposition post a fresh assessment. However, the court found that no material was presented by the revenue to establish concealment of income, emphasizing that the mere rejection of the firm's explanation did not warrant penalty imposition. Citing precedents, the court ruled that the penalty was not exigible in the absence of evidence proving deliberate concealment. Consequently, the court answered the third question in favor of the firm, concluding that the penalty was not justified.
|
