TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court emphasizes substantial evidence for penalties under Income-tax Act</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus University Printers</h3> The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the requirement for substantial evidence beyond a rejected explanation to impose a penalty under ... Cash Credits, Penalty Issues involved: The legality of canceling a penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on rejected explanation of cash credits.Summary:Assessment of Total Income:- The assessee, a registered firm, filed a return for the assessment year 1969-70 showing an income of Rs. 14,860.- The Income-tax Officer assessed the total income at Rs. 47,981 due to unexplained cash credits.- Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated, and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 16,000. Tribunal's Decision:- The Tribunal opined that rejecting the explanation did not automatically warrant a penalty unless the unexplained amount was proven to be the concealed income.- The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee was not found guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars but only of providing a false explanation.- The Tribunal's reasoning aligned with the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696, which emphasized the need for substantial evidence beyond a rejected explanation to impose a penalty. Legal Precedent and Decision:- The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, citing the binding nature of the Supreme Court's ruling in Anwar Ali case.- The Court rejected the Revenue's argument that the decision in Anwar Ali case should not be interpreted absolutely, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence to impose penalties.- Ultimately, the Court answered the referred question in favor of the assessee, highlighting the importance of substantial evidence for penalty imposition u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
