Skip to content


Sahitya Press Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Case No. 286 of 1971
Judge
Reported in[1976]102ITR218(All)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 256(2)
AppellantSahitya Press
RespondentCommissioner of Income-tax
Appellant AdvocateP.N. Pachauri and ;N.N. Pachauri, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateR.R. Misra, Adv.
Excerpt:
- - the fact that the assessee had distributed larger profits to its partners than shown in the return coupled with the fact that it had not shown the income from interest and property, clearly establishes the charge of concealment......year 1953-54, it filed a return showing an income of rs. 20,000. the return was rejected by the income-tax officer who assessed the income at rs. 40,000. on appeal the assessment was reduced by about rs. 8,000. thereafter, the income-tax officer discovered that in the relevant year the assessee had divided between its partners a profit of rs. 53,188. he also discovered that in the original return the assessee had not disclosed income from interest and property. the income-tax officer made a supplementaryassessment and also initiated proceedings for the levy of penalty. this inspecting assistant commissioner of income-tax ultimately levied penalty of rs. 6,234 under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the act on the charge that the assessee had concealed its income. the tribunal.....
Judgment:

Gulati, J.

1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

2. The assessee is a partnership firm. For the assessment year 1953-54, it filed a return showing an income of Rs. 20,000. The return was rejected by the Income-tax Officer who assessed the income at Rs. 40,000. On appeal the assessment was reduced by about Rs. 8,000. Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer discovered that in the relevant year the assessee had divided between its partners a profit of Rs. 53,188. He also discovered that in the original return the assessee had not disclosed income from interest and property. The Income-tax Officer made a supplementaryassessment and also initiated proceedings for the levy of penalty. This Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax ultimately levied penalty of Rs. 6,234 under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act on the charge that the assessee had concealed its income. The Tribunal has rejected the assessee's appeal as also its application for a reference under Section 256(1) of the Act.

3. The only question sought, to be raised by the learned counsel for the assesses is that there was no material be before the Tribunal to come in the conclusion that the assessee had concealed its income. We find no force in this contention. In our opinion the Tribunal had ample material before it. The fact that the assessee had distributed larger profits to its partners than shown in the return coupled with the fact that it had not shown the income from interest and property, clearly establishes the charge of concealment. The fact that in the past the assessee used to be assessed on an estimate basis did not afford any justification for the assessee in not declaring its true income. The question as to whether the assessee was guilty of concealment or not is a question of fact and as the findings recorded by the Tribunal are supported by the relevant material, no question of law can be said to arise out of its order.

4. The application fails and is dismissed with costs, which we assess at Rs. 100.


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