|
II. Direct Tax Case laws:
1. ACIT Vs. M/s A R Enterprises, Civil Appeal 2688 of 2006, Date of order: 14.01.2013, Supreme Court of India
Once
during the search, documents were obtained, and on scrutiny, revealed
undisclosed income, ROI subsequently filed, after initiation of
computation of income u/s 158BB, shall not be considered as voluntary
disclosure of income, for the purpose of proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). Mere
duly payment of advance tax, shall not determine bonafide intention of
the assessee for the purpose of disclosure of income. Filing of ROI is
mandatory, even if advance tax is duly paid.
Held :
In
the instant case, after the search was conducted on 23rd February 2006,
it was found that for the assessment year 1995-96, the respondent-
assessee had not filed its return of income by the due date. It is only
when block assessment proceedings were initiated by the assessing
officer, that the assessee filed its return for the said assessment year
on 11th July, 1996 under Section 158BC of the Act, showing its total
income as Rs.7,02,768/-. The assessee claimed, that since Advance Tax
had been paid in three installments, it could not have been said that
the income had not been disclosed or that there was no intention to
disclose income. We have already held that the payment of Advance Tax,
which is based upon estimated income, cannot tantamount to the
disclosure of the total income, which must be declared in the return. In
our opinion, the fact that the assessee had not filed its return of
income by the due date, the Assessing Officer was correct in assuming
that the assessee would not have disclosed its total income. For all
these reasons, the decision of the High Court cannot be sustained.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. CIT Vs. M/s Suren International (P) Ltd, ITA No. 289/ 2012, Date of judgement: 07.05.2013, Delhi High Court
In
the given case, the AO served a notice on the assessee for re-
examination of receipt of share application money, on the basis third
party statement that he was indulged in providing accommodation entries.
The Hon’ble High Court, considering the facts, stated that such
statement could not form the basis, as detailed examination of such
receipt was made during the first round of assessment proceedings, there
is no failure on the part of the assessee to produce truly and fully
all the material facts and had disclosed entire income in ROI. Also
seizure of stock does not imply escapement of income, accordingly, the
appeal was dismissed.
(Please click here for judgment)
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now