Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1983 (9) TMI 176

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....old. The first is that the ITO has no jurisdiction. It is the IAC, who should have imposed this penalty. The second is that on facts there is no concealment. The assessee is a bus operator. He maintained no proper accounts. His returns were on estimate basis. Somewhere in August, 1973 he purchased a motor vehicle for Rs. 1,06,000. The ITO asked for its sources. Then began an exercise in guesswork.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....annot confirm it. There is no element of factual concealment in the case. It is only a case of guesswork, good for purposes of assessment but bad for penalty. Each side excelled the other in that art. It is only a case of the explanation about the nature and source of the investment being not at all satisfactory in full or in part to the ITO and the AAC and satisfactory in part to the Tribunal. Un....