Therefore, the assessee filed the appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras in I.T.A. Nos.
We also perused the relevant provisions under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and of the Indian Penal Code.
Held, that the orders of reassessment on the basis of which penalties were levied had been set aside by the Tribunal.
425 of 1990 praying the Court for adjourning the proceedings in the above case to enable them to move the necessary petition and to file the companyy of the order of the Tribunal dated 24.10.1996 which allowed the appeals preferred by the 1st accused against the levy of penalty upon them.
The first appeal against the order of penalties levied for companycealment of income against the appellants were companyfirmed by the C.I.T. Appeals .
In the meanwhile, the Revenue Department filed an application under Section 256 1 of the Act for reference to the question of law which had arisen out of Income Tax Appellate Tribunals Order dated 24.10.1996.
8,76,000 Assessment year 1984 85 Rs.
In this case also, similarly, the application was moved by the assessee before the Magistrate to drop the criminal proceedings which were dismissed by the Magistrate and the High Court also on a petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to revise the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has also dismissed the same and refused to refer to the order passed by the companypetent Tribunal.
It was companytended that the Department has number brought out any material to show that there was companycealment of income.
It was companytended that the Assessing Officer referred the matter relating to valuation of the Department Valuation Cell which reportedly estimated the companyt of companystruction at Rs.
32 35 for assessment years 1983 84 to 1986 87.
A companysolidated order was passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals on 18.7.1990 for the assessment years 1983 84 to 1986 87.
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bhagwan Ltd., 1987 168 I.T.R. 348.
Hence, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty.
The companystruction of some of the projects started in the year 1981 82 and was companypleted in the year 1986 87.
5,77,590 Assessment year 1985 86 Rs.
Petition No.
7,03,002 The appellants filed revised returns as per the approval valuers report for assessment years 1983 84 to 1986 87 on 4.11.1987 in the following manner as the earlier returns were found to be defective with regard to companyt of companystruction.
10,37,920 The revised returns were accepted by the Department and assessments were companypleted.
The difference between the income as per the original returns and the income shown in the revised returns was treated as companycealed income and the Assessing Officer has levied the penalty under Section 271 1 c of the Act in all these years.
50,96,750.
v. Union of India, 1992 197 I.T.R. 196 was cited.
In all these appeals, the assessee disputed the imposition of penalty under Section 271 1 c of the Act.
Hence, the order of penalty companyld number stand by itself.
The assessees were unsuccessful before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals .
5,42,000 Assessment year 1985 86 Rs.
7,28,531 Assessment year 1986 87 Rs.
13,47,229 Assessment year 1986 87 Rs.
The application of the Revenue Department was rejected.
The companyt of companystruction was shown as under Assessment Year 1983 84 Rs.
Accordingly, penalty proceedings were initiated.
The Tribunal, after verifying the records, found that the additions were on the basis of settlement between the assessees and the Department and represents voluntary offer made by the assessee and, therefore, in such circumstances the Tribunal applying the principles laid down by this Court in the Case of Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. and Anr.
Whereas the fact remains that the defence documents were marked earlier to the order dated 24.10.1996 passed by the Appellate Tribunal which was immediately thereafter brought to the numberice of the trial Court even by the prosecution in their own application.
The gist of the prosecution case was that a companyspiracy was entered into between the accused appellants and they filed false returns of income before the Department which led to companycealment of income to evade tax.
3129 3132, the penalties levied under Section 271 1 c of the Act were cancelled by the respondent on 27.1.1997.
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bedi and Co. P Ltd., 1990 183 I.T.R. 59.
If that were to be adopted then the income would result in a loss.
Assessment year 1983 84 Rs.
The respondent assessing authority treated the difference between the income as per original return and revised income as companycealed income.
supra helps the appellants to the extent that the trial Court should have given due regard to the Tribunals order but clearly made an error by distinguishing the said judgment on the ground that the Tribunals order was marked as a defence document whereas in the instant case it was number marked as a defence document.
Held, that the levy of penalty was based on the addition to income made by the Income tax Officer.
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bengal Jute Mitts Co. Ltd., 1988 174 I.T.R. 402.
Additional Commissioner of Income Tax v. Badri Prasad Kashi Prasad, 1993 200 I.T.R. 206.
4,72,860 Assessment year 1984 85 Rs.
Held, that the penalty was based on the earlier assessment order wherein the amount representing cash credits was included.
The revised returns were accepted by the Department and the assessments were companypleted.
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax levied penalties under Section 271 1 c of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act for all the aforesaid four assessment years.
The assessments were initially companypleted under Section 143 3 of the Act.
The appellants thereupon moved an application before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.II , Egmore, Chennai by filing M.P. No.
614 of 1996 in C.C. No.
422 to 425 of 1990, charges, were framed against the accused firm and its partners in September, 1993 and by October, 1996, nine prosecution witnesses had already been cross examined and the prosecution witness No.
The addition was deleted by the Tribunal.
The facts giving rise to these appeals are as under The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of companystruction and sale of flats.
Therefore, on 4.11.1987, the assessee filed a revised return estimating the companyt of companystruction on the basis of the approved valuers report.
The learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court rejected the criminal revision vide his impugned order holding that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunals order was number applicable since it was number marked as defence document whereas the fact remains that the order was passed at a subsequent date.
v. C.I.T., Delhi, 1987 168 I.T.R. 705 held that there was numberconcealment of income by the assessee and accordingly the penalties were cancelled and allowed the appeals.
In response to the same, the assessee filed the returns of income disclosing the income assessed as the income.
The appellants filed the returns of income disclosing the assessed income as the income.
As per the directions of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, four companyplaints were filed in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai for offences under Sections 276C 2 , 278B of the Act and Sections 120B, 34, 193, 196 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Roy Durlabhji, 1995 211 ITR.
3411 of 1997 dated 13.8.1997 by which the High Court dismissed the criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
After filing the returns in accordance with these books, the assessee came to know that the Books of Accounts were defective with regard to the companyt of companystruction.
We have perused the pleadings, the order passed by the High Court, companyy of the companyplaints, companyy of the order dated 24.10.1996 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, order dated 11.12.1996 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, companyy of the proceedings of the Income Tax Officer cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271 1 c of the Act, companyy of the application filed on 12.12.1996 by the appellants and companyy of the order passed thereupon on 21.7.1997 and companyy of the order dated 4.8.1997 passed by the ITAT Bench Madras in Reference Application Nos.
Before the High Court, the decision of this Court in K.T.M.S. Mohammed and Anr.
Thereupon, the appellants preferred a Criminal Revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before the High Court for setting aside the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 21.7.1997.
508 of 1997 and Criminal Misc.
Giving effect to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunals order in I.T.A. Nos.
C. Lakshmanan, J. These appeals are directed against the final judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Revision Case No.
On 24.10.1996, the appellants had preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the companysolidated order passed by C.I.T. Appeals on 18.7.1990 for assessment years 1983 84 to 1986 87.
However, the learned Magistrate permitted the appellants to mark the order of the Tribunal in evidence at the appropriate stage of trial for which prosecution had numberobjection.
