Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Indermal Manaji Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Bombay High Court)
Appeal Number : Income Tax Reference No. 10 Of 2001
Date of Judgement/Order : 29/06/2017
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

The basis for initiation of Assessment Proceedings by the Assessment Officer is that the Assessment Officer disbelieved the claim of the assessee that he was engaged in the business of discounting drafts, whereas the Tribunal held that the assessee carries on the business of Draft Discounting. The assessee has stated that the amount in the account is the amount of the drafts received of which assessee charges Rs.1/­ per thousand as commission. Explanation (1) to Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act states that if a person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer to be false or such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him, then, the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of such person, as a result thereof shall for the purpose of Clause (c) of the said Subsection be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. In the present case, no addition of the amount has been made, nor is a case of dis allowance. Even the Tribunal had accepted the case of the assessee that he is carrying on the business of Draft Discounting. It is also observed that in many cases, the Tribunal has taken a view that in case of Draft Discounting, income is considered at Rs. 1/-­ per thousand and in some cases, at Rs. 2/­- per thousand. In the present case, it considered to Rs. 2/­- per thousand. The assessee, therefore, was not required to give any explanation as his case was accepted by the Tribunal in Appeal. As such, for all the above reasons, Explanation (1) to Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act would not be attracted.

 

The reference is made on the following question:

“(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in holding that the Explanation to Section 271 (1)(c) was correctly invoked by the CIT (A) ?”

2 The factual matrix, in nutshell, is as under :

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031