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

1955 Supreme(AP) 10

BHIMASANKARAM, K.SUBBA RAO
Subba Raju – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, (Now Hyderabad) – Respondent


( 1 ) THE question referred to us in this case is:"whether on the facts and circusmtances of the case, the imposition of the penalty of Rs. 4,000. 00 was justified under S. 28 (1) (c) of the Act?"

( 2 ) THE assessee is described as a firm of Military contractor doing business at Tradepalligudem, West Godavari District. For the assessment year 1944-45, the firm returned an income of Rs. 19,639. 00 on the basis of their accounts. The Income-tax Officer called for their accounts. The Income-tax Officer called for their accounts and on examination found that they were defective. So rejecting their estimate, he added a sum of Rs. 54,455. 00 to the income returned. There was an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioiner and a further appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, as a result of which the sum to be added was resulted to Rs. 35,354. 00. Three reasons for rejecting the account books were assigned by the Income Tax Authorities: (1) There was evidence that out of the coal supplied by the Government to enable the assessee to perform a contract, the assessee sold to a private to perform a contract, the assessee sold to a private party the two waggon loads of coal for Rs,1,000





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