SH. SUBASH CHANDER,UDHAMPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, UDHAMPUR

ITA 142/ASR/2017Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 March 2019AY 1992-935 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable on concealed turnover, even if the income is assessed on an estimated basis. The assessee's failure to provide material to show no profit on undisclosed turnover supported the penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee's accounts were rejected, and income was estimated based on a net profit rate applied to undisclosed turnover. The assessee admitted to undisclosed purchases and sales but maintained the original profit disclosure.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied on undisclosed turnover when income is assessed on an estimated basis. Whether suppression of turnover constitutes concealment of income for penalty purposes.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 145(3),Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148(1),Section 263,Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC

Before: SH. SANJAY ARORA

Hearing: 18.03.2019Pronounced: 29.03.2019

Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is a set of two Appeals by the Assessee, i.e., for two consecutive years, being assessment years (AYs.)1992-93 & 1993-94, arising out of separate orders by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jammu ('CIT(A)' for short) of even date (15.11.2016), confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for the relevant years, imposed at the minimum amount of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded in terms of Explanation 4 to the provision vide separate orders, both dated 20.3.2015. 2. It would be relevant to recount the background facts of the case, which are the same for both the years, as also the respective cases of both the parties, and w

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 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →