9911796707
TMI Blog1961 (10) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income which will justify the levy of a penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of ₹ 79,500 can be treated as the assesses' concealed income for the purpose of imposing a penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act. Question No. 1.--In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in C.A. Abraham v. Income-tax Officer, Kottayam [1961] 41 I.T.R. 425 ; [1961] 2 S.C.R. 765, affirming the decision of this court in C.A. Abraham v. Income-tax Officer, Kottayam [1958] 33 I.T.R. 287, it is agreed that this question has to be answered in the affirmative and against the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs under the Act, is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he or it may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, in addition to any tax payable by him, a sum not exceeding one and a half times the amount of the income-tax and super- tax, if any, which would have been avoided if the income as returned by such person had been accepted as the correct income. The addition of the amounts concerned was--as already indicated -as part of the business income of the assessee during the accounting period. The difference between assessment proceedings and the proceedings for the imposition of a penalty under section 28 was brought out clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it own circumstances. The evidence in the assessment proceedings would be relevant land admissible material in penalty proceedings. They will, however, not operate as res judicata because of the essential difference between the two types of proceedings. All that can really be said is that the onus of proof is on the department, that the degree of proof is that of a criminal prosecution and that the mere preponderance of probability will not suffice as in the case of a civil action. The item of ₹ 30,000, as already stated, is made up of three credit of ₹ 10,000 each to the accounts of the three partners on 16-1-1124. The significance of the fact that the credits were just sixteen days after the opening of the accounting year h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection was improper. The third and the last item relates to the difference in the cost of a building as contended by the assessee (Rs. 20,500) and as estimated by the department (Rs. 60,000). The fact that the assessee's own engineer valued the building at only ₹ 28,450 is not conclusive. It has three floors and fetches an annual rent of ₹ 5,000. The Income-tax Officer dealt with the matter as follows: The firm had in the year put up a palatial building in the Pattalam Road; the investment in this as per their accounts was only ₹ 20,500; This is a three-storeyed building and it construction is on modern lines with high quality materials. I inspected the locality and had a close look at the building. The cost of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
