Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS Respondent: JAGDISH PRASAD GOYAL
Court Name: Madhya Pradesh High Court Judge(s): Shambhoo Singh, R. D. Shukla Title: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs JAGDISH PRASAD GOYAL Case No.: Civil Case No.589 of 1994 Date of Judgment:2000-04-22 Reported As: 2000 PTD 838 Result: Application dismissed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT This application for reference under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been filed with the contention that the money has been recovered from one Sanjay Kumar on May 30, 1988, to the tune of Rs.4,45,000 which he declared to be the money of the assessee. This was accepted by the assessee. He thereafter filed a return in July 1988, and declared the amount to be the income for the assessm ent year 1989-90. Thereafter, he modified the statement and declared this income for the assessm ent year 1987-88. However, the Income-tax Officer accepted the amount to be the income for the current year, i.e., for 1988-89 and the assessment year 1989-90. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that since the money was found on a search and, therefore, the penalty was a must, the Tribunal had committed an error by setting aside the penalty. The money, in fact, was recovered from Sanjay Kumar who declared the money to be the income for the assessee which was not recovered on the search from the assessee himself. The Income-tax Officer accepted the income to be the income for the current year and taxed him accordingly. The assessee had a right to declare the income up to March 1989, but, however, he declared it in July, 1988, itself. <p.m></p.m>
---
## Page 2
revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.