1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
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>Tribunal Partially Allows Appeal on Tax Assessment & Penalty, Finding Jurisdictional Challenge Valid</h1> The Tribunal partly allowed the quantum appeal by confirming the Rs. 16,500 addition in reassessment for the asst. yr. 1967-68 but canceled the penalty ... - Issues:1. Reassessment of income and penalty imposition for asst. yr. 1967-68.2. Jurisdictional challenge to reassessment.3. Validity of additions made in reassessment - undisclosed income from car purchase and smuggling activities.4. Justification of penalty imposition based on additions made.Analysis:1. The appeals involved reassessment of income for asst. yr. 1967-68, where the original income of Rs. 8,990 was enhanced to Rs. 55,940, leading to two appeals - one against reassessment and another against penalty imposition.2. The jurisdictional challenge to reassessment was raised by the assessee's counsel, questioning the non-disclosure of car ownership and investments. The Tribunal found the action under s. 147(a) justified, as non-disclosure of investments amounted to non-disclosure of primary facts, supporting the jurisdiction for reassessment.3. The additions made in reassessment included Rs. 16,500 as undisclosed income from a car purchase and Rs. 30,000 as income from smuggling activities. The Tribunal confirmed the Rs. 16,500 addition but found insufficient evidence to support the separate Rs. 30,000 addition, partially allowing the quantum appeal.4. Regarding penalty imposition, the IAC levied a penalty of Rs. 60,000 based on the additions made. The Tribunal, however, canceled the penalty considering that the addition for unexplained investment did not amount to concealed income, and there was no evidence of fraud or wilful neglect to justify the penalty under Expl. to s. 271(1)(C).In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the quantum appeal by confirming the Rs. 16,500 addition but canceling the penalty imposition of Rs. 60,000, highlighting the importance of evidence and justification for additions and penalties in income reassessment cases.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
