NEW SORATHIA ENGINEERING CO., vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

ITR/89/1995HC GujaratGJHC24022414199525 January 2006Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI9 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, New Sorathia Engineering Co., is challenging a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 1981-82. The penalty arose from an addition of Rs. 61,000/- in cash credits, which was confirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in quantum proceedings. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings, and the penalty was upheld by the CIT(A). The ITAT also upheld the penalty. The assessee's reference application to the High Court of Gujarat proposed five questions, but only one was referred for adjudication: whether the ITAT was right in upholding the penalty.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was not right in upholding the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Court noted that the assessee had pressed the decision of this Court in CIT v. Manu Engineering Works (supra) before the Tribunal. Although the Tribunal reproduced the citation, it did not record any finding on the issue of whether a clear-cut finding was made by the Assessing Officer regarding concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Court found that the penalty order and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) did not show a clear-cut finding. The Tribunal failed to appreciate this legal issue and did not deal with the decision of the jurisdictional High Court. The ratio of CIT v. Manu Engineering Works, which states that it is incumbent upon the authority to come to a positive finding as to whether there was concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, applies directly. Therefore, the order of penalty could not be sustained, and the Tribunal's order upholding it was an error in law. The question referred is answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) in respect of cash credits aggregating to Rs.61,000/-? Assessee's Contentions: - The penalty is bad in law because the Assessing Officer did not make a clear-cut finding as to whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, relying on CIT v. Manu Engineering Works (122 ITR 306) and A.M. Shah and Company v. CIT (238 ITR 415). - The Tribunal failed to adjudicate this specific contention. - Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) cannot be relied upon as it was not invoked in the notice. - Explanation 1 cannot apply in the absence of confirmations, and confirmations were indeed provided. - If Explanation 1 did not apply, no penalty can be imposed based on CIT v. Vinaychand Harilal (120 ITR 752), which held that cash credit becomes income only at the time of the assessment order. Revenue's Contentions: - The Tribunal had not recorded any finding on the issue of a clear-cut finding, and it would at best be an error apparent on record. - Once the contention was raised and not dealt with by the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the Tribunal recorded a finding that makes the order bad in law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 256(1),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/89/1995 1/9 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No.89 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 ? ===================================================== NEW SORATHIA ENGINEERING CO. - Applicant(s) Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - Respondent(s) ===================================================== Appearance : MR KH KAJI for Applicant(s) : 1, MR TANVISH U BHATT for Respondent(s) : 1, ===================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 25/01/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA) 1.

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 →