Skip to main content

Mere difference in valuation method does not mean conscious concealment of income

In Shah Virchand Govanji Jwellers Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, Valsad Circle, Valsad, decided on 26-10-2017, the Income Tax Apellate Tribunal, Surat, passed an order for a case related to difference in the amount of income and furthermore, in the return, due to adoption of different methods by each party.

The brief facts of the case are that there was difference in the amount of income as two different methods were used by the parties respectively. Also there was an accusation of disallowance of computer expenses which was voluntarily agreed to by the assessee. The appeal for the same was filed before the CIT (A). However, the CIT (A) upheld the levity of penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal observed that the difference in the valuation method alone does not amount to the conscious concealment of income. The Tribunal also said that issuing of notice without striking off the irrelevant clauses and without mentioning the specific charges against the assessee makes the notice vague and it is a settled principle now that when the charges are vague and not specific, no penalty can be levied. Further reliance in the case was made through CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory, 2012 SCC OnLine Kar 8862 : [2013] 359 ITR 565, through which it was observed that the charges against the assessee should be specifically construed. Also reliance was placed on Meharjee Cassinath Holdings Pvt. Ltd.  v. ACIT Circle 4(2) , where there was a similar case of non-application of mind while serving the notice.

Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2017/11/23/mere-difference-valuation-method-not-mean-conscious-concealment-income/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more