Case Law Details
Karnataka High Court
CIT vs. M/s Sangameshwara Associates
Income Tax Appeal No. 522 of 2006
Date of Decision 02.04.2012
The Return of Income filed pursuant to a notice notice U/s. 148 is not ‘voluntary’ & it can be readily inferred that the assessee had not furnished full particulars of his true income and so reopening became necessary. The explanation that the income was offered to buy peace is not acceptable because it is a clear case of admission of not offering true income earlier.
If it had not been for the reopening, the income would have escaped assessment. When the assessee admits, by offering additional income in the Section 148 Return of Income, that the earlier Return of Incomedid not disclose the true income, there is no burden on the department to show concealment.
In view of para 3 of Instruction 2/2005, appeal to HC u/s 260A maintainable even if subject matter of appeal below monetary limit of Rs.4,00,000
Since clause 3 of Instruction 2/2005 dated 24-10-2005 provides that in cases involving substantial question of law of importance as well as in cases where a question of law will be recurring from year to year or from assessee to assessee such appeals can be pursued by Department without being hindered by monetary limit. The Circular cannot be a hindrance when appeal has been admitted by High Court.
