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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more