9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1973 (8) TMI 23 - HC - Income TaxIncome from Business - Income from Undisclosed Sources - Levy Of Penalty - Income-tax Officer pursued the investigation when custom authorities seized certain documents from the assessees but not took any action - At the instance of the assessee questions were - 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee had concealed his income to the extent of Rs. 10, 000 representing the income of Sornavalli Ammal for the assessment year 1958-59 ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee had concealed his income to the extent of Rs. 1, 229 representing the interest on credits for the assessment year 1958-59 ? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee had concealed his income to the extent of Rs. 1, 500 representing income from currency smuggling during the assessment year 1958-59 ? - There is no other material to show that the assessee was involved in currency smuggling activities and derived income which he had suppressed. In the special facts and circumstances of this case we are clearly of the view that the penalty levied cannot at all be sustained
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of Rs. 10,000 addition as income from currency smuggling. 2. Justification of disallowance of Rs. 17,630 as trading loss. 3. Penalty for concealment of income related to three items: income of Sornavalli Ammal, interest on credits, and income from currency smuggling. Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of Rs. 10,000 Addition as Income from Currency Smuggling: The court examined whether the addition of Rs. 10,000 as income from currency smuggling for the assessment year 1958-59 was justified. The Income-tax Officer based his decision on a letter dated October 25, 1959, from the assessee, which he construed as an admission of engagement in currency smuggling activities. The Tribunal upheld the Income-tax Officer's estimation of the turnover but reduced the profit rate from 10% to 3%, thereby restricting the addition to Rs. 10,000. The court concluded that the Income-tax Officer was justified in making an estimate based on the letter and the prevailing commission rates for such activities. Thus, the first question in T.C. No. 3 of 1968 was answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. 2. Justification of Disallowance of Rs. 17,630 as Trading Loss: The court considered whether the disallowance of the assessee's claim of Rs. 17,630 as a trading loss was justified. The assessee had shown Rs. 20,000 as an investment in the film "New Life," which resulted in a loss. The Tribunal disallowed the claim, treating it as a capital loss based on the assessee's accounting treatment. The court, however, emphasized that the true nature of the transaction should be considered, not merely the accounting entries. The court referenced various judgments, including Commissioner of Income-tax v. Modern Theatres Ltd. and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mogul Line Ltd., to support the view that the loss should be treated as a trading loss. The court concluded that the loss was indeed a trading loss and answered the second question in T.C. No. 3 of 1968 in the negative and in favor of the assessee. 3. Penalty for Concealment of Income: The court addressed the penalty proceedings initiated against the assessee for concealing income related to three items: - Income of Sornavalli Ammal - Interest on credits - Income from currency smuggling The Tribunal had upheld the penalty for the first two items but reduced the concealed income for currency smuggling to Rs. 1,500. The court found that there was no concrete material to prove concealment for the first and third items, and the addition was based on the Income-tax Officer's rejection of the assessee's explanation. The court held that the penalty could not be sustained as there was no clear evidence of concealment. The court answered all the questions in T.C. No. 12 of 1968 in the negative and in favor of the assessee, concluding that the penalty levied could not be sustained. The assessee was awarded costs in T.C. No. 12 of 1968, with counsel's fee set at Rs. 250, and no order was made regarding costs in the other case.
|
