9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the assessee : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company had concealed the particulars of its income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in regard to the claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 1,40,137 for the assessment year 1956-57 ? " The assessee is a company. The proceedings relate to its assessment for the assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty proceedings under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and, after allowing the assessee an opportunity of being heard, imposed a penalty of Rs. 32,554. For this purpose, the Income-tax Officer mainly relied on the following findings given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which were confirmed by the Tribunal: (a) That no person by the name of Ramchandra Ramkumar existed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he subsequent assessment years 1958-59 to 1963-64. Shri Dalvi, learned counsel for the assessee, has taken us through the findings given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to show that the Investigation Commission had held that the amounts standing to the credit of M/s. Ramachandra Ramkumar in the books of the assessee-company belonged to the Jalan Group. According to him, the fact that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich explanation had been found to be false, did not lead to the conclusion that the assessee was guilty of concealment within the meaning of section 28(1)(c). Shri Jetly, learned counsel for the Department, on the other hand, submitted that the Supreme Court decision is not applicable to this case. The additions involved in that case were of amounts received. The question of deduction in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
