COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. J H PARABIA(TRANSPORT)P.LTD.

ITR/112/1995HC GujaratGJHC24022437199516 February 2006Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI10 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, J H Parabia (Transport) Pvt. Ltd., filed its original return of income for Assessment Year 1990-91 showing an income of Rs. 12,67,206. Subsequently, it filed a revised return on November 20, 1991, showing an income of Rs. 13,30,110. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted the absence of work-in-progress or uncertified work in the Profit & Loss account and asked the assessee to show cause. In response, the assessee offered Rs. 13,60,883 as income receivable, claimed Rs. 7,00,110 as unprovided expenses, and Rs. 5,60,000 as wrongly treated income. The AO ultimately assessed the income at Rs. 13,44,440. Penalty proceedings were initiated, with the AO quantifying concealment at Rs. 14,03,311, which was later modified by the Commissioner (Appeals) to Rs. 7,03,202. The AO levied a penalty of Rs. 8,33,566, which was upheld in principle by the CIT(A) with a modified basis.

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c). The Tribunal found that the difference between the originally returned income and the revised returned income was only Rs. 63,000, and the difference between the original income and the assessed income was about Rs. 77,000. The difference between the revised return and the assessed income was only Rs. 14,000. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not show work-in-progress, but also included items as income that were not taxable. Crucially, the Tribunal found as a fact that the assessee had consistently adopted the method of not including work-in-progress since the inception of the company, and this method had been accepted by the department for three preceding assessment years. The Tribunal concluded that there was no intention to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars, and the assessee held a bonafide belief that uncertified work-in-progress was not taxable. The question of law is answered in favour of the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer, even though the assessee is engaged in the contract business of material handling and is a Pvt. Ltd. Co., for not showing the amount of work uncertified in the credit side of the P&L account and thereby not furnishing accurate particulars of its income in the original return of income filed by it, and the assessee filed a revised return only when it was pointed out by the Assessing Officer, though under law the assessee was duty-bound to do that and to pay tax accordingly? Assessee's Contention: The Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty because there was no intention to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars. The difference between the original and revised return was minimal. The assessee consistently followed a method of accounting, accepted by the department for prior years, of not including work-in-progress. Errors in the original return were on both sides (omissions and inclusions), leading to a negligible tax effect. The assessee acted on a bonafide belief. Revenue's Contention: The assessee failed to show the amount of uncertified work in the P&L account, thus not furnishing accurate particulars of income in the original return. A revised return was filed only after being prompted by the AO, despite the legal duty to do so.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/112/1995 1/10 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 112 of 1995 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI =============================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - Applicant(s) Versus J H PARABIA(TRANSPORT)P.LTD. - Respondent(s) ================================================ Appearance : MR TANVISH U BHATT for Applicant(s) : 1, MR RK PATEL for Respondent(s) : 1, ================================================

ITR/112/1995 2/10 JUDGMENT CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 16/02/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA) 1 The Income Tax Appellate Tri

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 24,918 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →