SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(SC) 340

P.N.BHAGWATI, R.S.PATHAK
Brij Mohan – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Income Tax New Delhi – Respondent


Advocates:
A.Subhashini, G.A.SHAH, K.L.Taneja, S.C.Manchanda, S.L.Aneja

Judgment

PATHAK, J.:- Is an assessee, who has concealed the particulars of his income, liable to penalty under clause (iii) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as it stood on the date of the concealment or as it stood during the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the income was earned?

2. That is the question in this reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under S. 257 of the Income-tax Act.

3. The assessee is a partner in two firms, Messrs. New Crockery House. He filed a return of his total income for the assessment year 1964-65 on April 24, 1968. He disclosed an income of Rs. 460/- from his share in the profits of Messrs Hindustan Pottery Agency. He did not disclose the income from his share in Messrs. New Crockery House. In the course of the assessment proceeding, the Income-tax Officer found that the assesee had received income from Messrs. New Crockery House also. Because of non-compliance by the assessee with a notice issued under S. 143 (2) of the Act, the Income-tax Officer made a best judgment assessment under S. 144 of the Act on a total income of Rs. 12,118/-. This included a share income of Rs. 1,462/- from Messrs. Hindust















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top