DILIP N. SHROFF v. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The appeal is allowed
Provisions considered
- Income Tax Act, 1961 ss. 27(1)(c), 28, 271
- SSA of the Act
- Wealth Tax Act
- Wealth Tax Act, 1957 s. 18
- Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 s. 61
Judgment
Sadhu Singh v. District Board (1969) RCR 156, P.J. Irani v. State of Madras, [1962) 2SCR169 and The Workmen of Mis Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) ltd v. The Management AIR (1973) SC 1227, referred to. D 10. 'Concealment of income' and 'furnisl}ing of inaccurate particulars' are different. But concealment and furnishiilg inaccurate particulars refer to deliberate act on the part of the assessee. A mere omission or negligence would not constitute a deliberate act of suppression veri or suggestionfalsi. Although it may not be very accurate or apt but suppression veri would amount E to concealment, suggestion falsi would amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. [Para 67) (535-C-D] ,;_
11.1. The authorities did not arrive at a finding that the consideration amount fixed for the sale of property was wholly inadequate. The authorities also do not show what inaccurate particulars are furnished by the appellant. F They also do not state what should have been the accepted principles of valuation. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the submissions of the respondent that concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars would overlap each other, but the same would not mean that they do not represent different concepts. Had they not been so, the Parliament would not have used G the different terminologies. [Para 68) (535-E-F) ....,. . "'""
11.2. What was, therefore, necessary to be found out in respect whereof the assessing officer was required to arrive at a satisfaction was 'falsity' in furnishing of explanation by the assessee. Explanation-I, therefore, categorically states that such explanation must either be false or not otherwise H 506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 7 S.C.R. A substantiated. Even in explanation-4, the expression "evaded" finds place. (Para 69) (535-H; 536-A( B
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Income Tax Act, 1961 — ss. 27(1)(c), 28, 271; SSA of the Act; Wealth Tax Act; Wealth Tax Act, 1957 — s. 18; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 — s. 61.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.