Skip to content


Batti FakruddIn Saheb and Sons Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case Number Tax Revision Case No. 52 of 1961
Judge
Reported in[1962]13STC822(AP)
AppellantBatti FakruddIn Saheb and Sons
RespondentThe State of Andhra Pradesh
Appellant Advocate V.V. Narayana Gupta, Adv.
Respondent Advocate The Third Government Pleader
DispositionRevision dismissed
Excerpt:
.....or it may direct that such person shall pay by way of penality .in the cases referred to in clauses (b) and (c), in addition to any tax payable by him, a sum not exceeding one and a half times the amount of the income-tax and super-tax, if, any, which,would have been avoided if the income as returned by such person. 162 that where it is found that there has been a deliberate suppression of income 'the penalty leviable under section 28(1)(c) is to relate to the actual tax assessed on the income as finally estimated which .need not be confined to the income shown to have been concealed, 5. having regard to the purpose, object and intendment of section 14(2), which is the same as that which underlies section 28(1))(c), we are led to conclude that the same interpretation as was placed on..........which,would have been avoided if the income as returned by such person. had been accepted as the correct income.4. it was held by a division bench of this court in kalidindi subbaraju gopalaraju & co. v. commissioner of income-tax, madras [1955] 28 i.t.r. 162 that where it is found that there has been a deliberate suppression of income 'the penalty leviable under section 28(1)(c) is to relate to the actual tax assessed on the income as finally estimated which ... need not be confined to the income shown to have been concealed,5. having regard to the purpose, object and intendment of section 14(2), which is the same as that which underlies section 28(1))(c), we are led to conclude that the same interpretation as was placed on the provisions of section 28(1)(c) should govern the.....
Judgment:

Satyanakayana Raju, J.

1. This tax revision case raises a question as to the true scope and interpretation of Section 14 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, which reads :

When making an assessment to the best of judgment under Sub-section (1) the assessing authority may also direct the dealer to pay in addition to the tax assessed, a penalty not exceeding one and half times the tax due on the turnover that was not disclosed by the dealer in his return.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the assessee that the turnover referred to in the sub-section means only the 'actual' turnover that was not disclosed and not the estimated turnover. This contention is manifestly unsound. It should be remembered that under Section 14, the assessing authority is not compelled to limit the estimate of the turnover to the transactions which may have been deliberately suppressed. It is open to the assessing authority to make an estimate of the turnover. It is reasonable to infer that just as the estimate under Section 14(1) is not limited to the turnover actually proved to have been concealed, the penalty leviable under Section 14(2) can relate to the turnover as finally estimated and need not be confined to the turnover shown to have been concealed. That, in our opinion, is the reasonable construction which ought to be given to the provisions of Section 14(2). If what is contended for by the assessee is correct, then it would be for the department to show me turnover hot actually disclosed, which in the very nature of things is an impossibility.

3. There is no decided case which has construed the provisions of Section 14(2), but a reference to Section 28(i)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, which is analogous to the present provision, can safely be taken as a guide to the interpretation of the provisions in question. Section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act reads :-

28(1). If the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Appellate Tribunal, in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person-(c) has concealed the particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he or it may direct that such person shall pay by way of penality ... in the cases referred to in Clauses (b) and (c), in addition to any tax payable by him, a sum not exceeding one and a half times the amount of the income-tax and super-tax, if, any, which,would have been avoided if the income as returned by such person. had been accepted as the correct income.

4. It was held by a Division Bench of this Court in Kalidindi Subbaraju Gopalaraju & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras [1955] 28 I.T.R. 162 that where it is found that there has been a deliberate suppression of income 'the penalty leviable under Section 28(1)(c) is to relate to the actual tax assessed on the income as finally estimated which ... need not be confined to the income shown to have been concealed,

5. Having regard to the purpose, object and intendment of Section 14(2), which is the same as that which underlies Section 28(1))(c), we are led to conclude that the same interpretation as was placed on the provisions of Section 28(1)(c) should govern the provisions of Section 14(2) as well.

6. In this view, we hold that the order of the Tribunal is correct. This tax revision case is accordingly dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //