2000 PLP 838 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus JAGDISH PRASAD GOYAL
| Citation | 2000 PLP 838 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 233 I T R 95 |
| Bench Members | R. D. Shukla and Shambhoosingh, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus JAGDISH PRASAD GOYAL |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 838 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 838 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 233 I T R 95 bench comprising: R. D. Shukla and Shambhoosingh, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 838 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus JAGDISH PRASAD GOYAL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Questions regarding year of assessment and levy of penalty are questions of fact-- Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 256 &
271. A sum of Rs. 4,45,000 was recovered from S on May 30, 1988, which he declared to be the money of the assessee. This was accepted by the assessee. He thereafter, filed a return in July, 1988, and declared the amount to be the income for the assessment year 1989-90. "thereafter, he modified the statement and declared this income for the assessment year 1987-88. However, the Income-tax Officer accepted the amount to be the income for 1988-89 and assessed it in the assessment year 1989-90. On an application for reference on the ground that the Tribunal had erred in accepting .the year of assessment and in not levying penalty: Held, dismissing the application, that the question of penalty is a question of fact. The second question regarding the amount of Rs.25,000, as to whether it was the income of a past year, was also a question of fact. V. K. Jain for the Commissioner. M. S. Choudhary for the Assessee.
Judgment & Decree
This application for reference under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been filed with the contention that the money has been recovered from one Sanjay Kumar on May 30, 1988, to the tune of Rs.4,45,000 which he declared to be the money of the assessee. This was accepted by the assessee. He thereafter filed a return in July 1988, and declared the amount to be the income for the assessment year 1989-90. Thereafter, he modified the statement and declared this income for the assessment year 1987-88. However, the Income-tax Officer accepted the amount to be the income for the current year, i.e., for 1988-89 and the assessment year 1989-90. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that since the money was found on a search and, therefore, the penalty was a must, the Tribunal had committed an error by setting aside the penalty. The money, in fact, was recovered from Sanjay Kumar who declared the money to be the income for the assessee which was not recovered on the search from the assessee himself. The Income-tax Officer accepted the income to be the income for the current year and taxed him accordingly. The assessee had a right to declare the income up to March 1989, but, however, he declared it in July, 1988, itself. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed any error in accepting the amount for the current year and in setting aside the penalty. We find no substance in the application, even otherwise the question of penalty is a question of fact. The second question regarding the amount of Rs.25,000 as to whether, the income is of a past year is also a question of fact. No question of law arises. The application is dismissed. M.B.A./3328/FC Application dismissed.