2001 PLP 2753 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus JAYARAJ TALKIES
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2753 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 239 I T R 914 |
| Bench Members | R. Jayasimha Babu and Mrs. A. Subbulakshmy, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus JAYARAJ TALKIES |
| Primary Law | Income‑tax‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2753 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income‑tax‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2753 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 239 I T R 914 bench comprising: R. Jayasimha Babu and Mrs. A. Subbulakshmy, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2753 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus JAYARAJ TALKIES). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Penalty‑‑‑Concealment of income‑‑‑Mere agreement to addition of income or surrender of income does not imply concealment of income‑‑‑Surrender of amounts to assessment because assessee was unable to substantiate claims with necessary vouchers‑‑‑Statement relied on by ITO for levying penalty not made known to assessee and assessee not given an opportunity to rebut it Tribunal was justified in cancelling penalty‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act,, 1961, S.271(1)(c). Not every case of non‑disclosure warrants imposition of penalty as the assessee may forgo a deduction, or offer higher sums for taxation for a variety of reasons and all of them cannot be regarded as reasons which are unworthy of acceptance. From the assessee agreeing to additions to his income, it does not follow that the amount agreed to be added, was concealed income. Penalty had been imposed because the assessee who was the owner of a theatre and who had derived income from leasing the same; had after filing a return claiming deduction of a sum of Rs.4,125 and Rs.16,348 towards building maintenance and furniture repairs, respectively, himself volunteered to offer them as part of his income on account of the difficulty encountered by him in securing necessary vouchers and receipts. The Tribunal found that there was a dispute between the lessee and the lessor of the theatre which had resulted in proceedings in the Court, that the statement relied on by the Income‑tax Officer was not a statement obtained from the lessee in the presence of the lessor and that the lessor had not been given an opportunity to cross‑examine the lessee. The Tribunal cancelled the penalty. On a reference: Held, that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified and had valid materials to hold that there was no concealment of income on the part of the assessee and hence penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not exigible. Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC) applied. S. Sunderasan for the Commissioner. Nemo for the Assessee.
Judgment & Decree
R. JAYASIMHA BABU; J.‑‑‑The Tribunal has given reasons for holding that the penalty is not leviable on the assessee. The reasons given are that there was a dispute between the lessee and the lessor of the theatre which has resulted in the proceedings in Court, that the statement relied on by the Income‑tax Officer was not a statement obtained from the lessee in the presence of the lessor; that the lessor had not been given an opportunity to cross‑examine the lessee; and that the repair work to the furniture had been carried out by the workers of one Madhava Rao & Sons, Secunderabad, at a time where those workers had spare time on account of insufficient work being available at that time. The Revenue contends that as the assessee‑owner of the theatre who had derived income from leasing the same, had after filing a return claiming deduction of a sum of Rs.4,125 and Rs.16,348 towards building maintenance and furniture repairs respectively, himself volunteered to offer these sums as part of his income on account of the difficulty encountered by him in securing necessary vouchers and receipts. That conduct of the assessee according to the Revenue was by itself sufficient to show that there was concealment. The Supreme Court in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 705, has pointed out that not every case of non‑disclosure warrants imposition of penalty as the assessee may forego a deduction or offer higher sums for taxation for hundred and one different reasons and all of them cannot be regarded as reasons which are unworthy of acceptance. The Supreme Court in that case held that the Tribunal which had held that penalty was not imposable having regard to the circumstances in the case had held so rightly. The Supreme Court observed that from the assessee agreeing to additions to his income, it does not follow that the amount agreed to be added was concealed income. There may be a hundred and one reasons for such admission. The reasons offered in the case has rightly been held by the Tribunal to be relevant reasons. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. M.B.A./277/FC Reference answered.