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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more