Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '502631',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '502631',
		(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '502631',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p>(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p>2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p>3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p>4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p>'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p>We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p>5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p>6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '502631',
	(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/502631/arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '502631',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '502631',
		(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '502631',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p>(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p>2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p>3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p>4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p>'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p>We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p>5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p>6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '502631',
	(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/502631/arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- indian penal code, 1890.section 306 :[dalveer bhandari & harjit singh bedi,jj] abetment of suicide deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - ocular evidence was sketchy - dying declaration recorded by tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence held, though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. - annexure 'b' is the report made by the income-tax officer to the inspecting assistant.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '502631',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '502631',
		(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '502631',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p>(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p>2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p>3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p>4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p>'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p>We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p>5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p>6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '502631',
	(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/502631/arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '502631',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '502631',
		(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '502631',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p>(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p>2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p>3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p>4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p>'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p>We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p>5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p>6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '502631',
	(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/502631/arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

sohani, j.1. by a reference, misc. civil case no. 74 of 1979, under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), the income-tax appellate tribunal, indore bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :'(1) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in law in holding that the inspecting assistant commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the income-tax act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of sub-clause (2) of section 274 of the income-tax act, 1961, with effect from april 1, 1976 ?(2) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'2. when that reference came.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '502631',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '502631',
		(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '502631',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p>(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p>2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p>3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p>4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p>'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p>We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p>5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p>6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '502631',
	(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/502631/arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sohani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Sohani, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '502631',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '502631',
		(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '502631',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p>(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p>2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p>3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p>4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p>'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p>We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p>5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p>6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '502631',
	(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/502631/arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sohani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '502631',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '502631',
		(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '502631',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p>(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p>2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p>3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p>4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p>'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p>We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p>5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p>6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '502631',
	(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/502631/arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sohani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '502631',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '502631',
		(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '502631',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p>(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p>2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p>3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p>4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p>'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p>We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p>5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p>6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '502631',
	(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/502631/arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sohani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '502631',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '502631',
		(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '502631',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p>(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p>2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p>3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p>4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p>'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p>We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p>5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p>6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '502631',
	(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/502631/arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sohani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '502631',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '502631',
		(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '502631',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p>(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p>2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p>3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p>4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p>'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p>We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p>5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p>6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '502631',
	(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/502631/arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sohani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '502631',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '502631',
		(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '502631',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p>(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p>2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p>3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p>4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p>'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p>We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p>5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p>6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '502631',
	(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/502631/arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sohani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '502631',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '502631',
		(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '502631',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p>(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p>2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p>3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p>4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p>'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p>We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p>5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p>6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '502631',
	(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/502631/arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sohani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '502631',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '502631',
		(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '502631',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p>(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p>2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p>3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p>4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p>'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p>We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p>5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p>6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '502631',
	(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/502631/arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sohani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '502631',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '502631',
		(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '502631',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p>(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p>2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p>3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p>4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p>'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p>We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p>5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p>6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '502631',
	(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/502631/arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sohani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '502631',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '502631',
		(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '502631',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p>(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p>2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p>3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p>4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p>'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p>We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p>5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p>6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '502631',
	(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/502631/arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sohani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '502631',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '502631',
		(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 502631 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '502631',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Arya Confectionary Works',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.  -  Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-07-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?</p><p>(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'</p><p>2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.</p><p>3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.</p><p>4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :</p><p>'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.</p><p>We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'</p><p>5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.</p><p>6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1987]163ITR840(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '502631',
	(int) 1 => 'arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/502631/arya-confectionary-works-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sohani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. By a reference, Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following two questions of law to this court for its opinion :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, especially in view of the omission of Sub-clause (2) of Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1976 ?',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was valid ?'',
	(int) 4 => '<p>2. When that reference came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court, the court by its order dated March 27, 1981, directed the Tribunal to send a supplementary statement of the case and state therein the date on which the matter regarding imposition of penalty was referred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In pursuance of that direction, the Tribunal has now sent a supplementary statement of the case. The Tribunal has stated that the Income-tax Officer had made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood prior to April 1, 1976, when that provision was deleted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Tribunal has also stated that there is no pro forma prescribed under the Income-tax Rules for making a reference under Section 274(2) of the Act. In view of the facts stated in the supplementary statement of the case, it must be held, following a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. A.N. Tiwari, : [1980]124ITR680(MP) that as the reference was made to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act in accordance with Section 274(2) of the Act as it stood at the time of making the reference, the reference would not be invalidated by the subsequent amendment deleting Section 274(2) from April 1, 1976. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that no valid reference was made by the Income-tax Officer prior to April 1, 1976. The contention was that what was sent by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was merely a report which was not accompanied by the relevant record. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the contention as to whether the reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, was a valid reference.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. Now the facts that the Income-tax Officer who made the reference was competent to make the reference and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who received the reference was competent to receive the same have not been disputed. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not prescribe any form in which a reference is required to be made under Section 274(2) of the Act. Annexure 'B' is the report made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975, and the heading of that report discloses that it is a case recommended for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. In that report, detailed factual information for initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty has been furnished. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the Income-tax Officer was obliged under Section 274(2) of the Act to send the entire record of the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to enable him to decide the matter relating to imposition of penalty. There cannot be any dispute that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner should have before him the relevant record before he proceeds to pass an order imposing penalty. But the date of sending the record or any further information to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will not be decisive of the question as to the date when the reference was made. That will depend upon the date when the Income-tax Officer, who had jurisdiction, had moved the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings against an assessee for imposition of penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act. In the instant case, the Income-tax Officer had referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on April 22, 1975. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was no valid reference made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner prior to April 1, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to levy the penalty.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>4. As regards the second question referred to this court, the Tribunal has found that the business carried on in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was a benami business of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal, as recorded in the order forming part of the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 74 of 1979, is as follows :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'On merits, learned counsel of the assessee has reiterated the contention that business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies was carried on by Shri Gopaldas himself and the assessee-firm had nothing to do with the said business. In this connection, reliance was placed on the statement of Shri Jawaharlal, partner, recorded by the Income-tax Officer and also the affidavit of Shri Gopaldas. It was contended that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the business done by Shri Gopaldas should not have been treated as the benami business of the assessee-firm and, consequently, there was no charge of concealment against the assessee.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>We have already discussed at length the facts of the case while dealing wish the addition made to the total income of the assessee in respect of the business done in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies and we have clearly held that the said business was actually carried on by the assessee-firm. In view of our finding that the said business was the benami business of the assessee, the charge of concealment of the income from the said business has been clearly established against the assessee. From the facts stated in the earlier part this order while dealing with the income from M/s. Gopal Agencies, it is obvious that the assessee set up a device to divert a part of its income and thereby a clear attempt has been made to conceal the particulars of its income. We, therefore, hold that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable in this case. However, since the amount of addition from business in the name of M/s. Gopal Agencies has been reduced to Rs. 10,000, we reduce the amount of penalty to a sum of Rs. 10,000.'',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. In view of the aforesaid finding by the Tribunal, it cannot be held, as urged on behalf of the assessee, that the Revenue had not discharged the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. The Tribunal, in our opinion was justified in holding that the levy of penalty was valid.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. Our answer to the two questions referred to this court are, therefore, in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p>',
	(int) 11 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 12
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Direct Taxation
Court	Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On	Jul-28-1986
Case Number	Misc. Civil Case No. 303 of 1984
Judge	G.G. Sohani and ;B.B.L. Shrivastava, JJ.
Reported in	[1987]163ITR840(MP)
Acts	Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 271(1) and 274(2); Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975
Appellant	Arya Confectionary Works
Respondent	Commissioner of Income-tax
Appellant Advocate	S.S. Samvatsar, Adv.
Respondent Advocate	R.C. Mukati, Adv.

Arya Confectionary Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax - Court Judgment