{"id":235162,"date":"1971-09-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1971-09-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-khoday-eswarsa-sons-on-22-september-1971"},"modified":"2017-08-22T07:30:35","modified_gmt":"2017-08-22T02:00:35","slug":"commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-khoday-eswarsa-sons-on-22-september-1971","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-khoday-eswarsa-sons-on-22-september-1971","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs M\/S. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons on 22 September, 1971"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs M\/S. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons on 22 September, 1971<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 132, \t\t 1972 SCR (1) 846<\/div>\n
Author: C Vaidyialingam<\/div>\n
Bench: Vaidyialingam, C.A.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/S.  KHODAY ESWARSA & SONS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT22\/09\/1971\n\nBENCH:\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\nBENCH:\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\nREDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN\n\nCITATION:\n 1972 AIR  132\t\t  1972 SCR  (1) 846\n 1971 SCC  (3) 555\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1973 SC  22\t (14)\n RF\t    1980 SC1146\t (6)\n F\t    1992 SC 591\t (2)\n\n\nACT:\nIncome-tax Act (11 of 1922), s. 28 (1) (c) Levy of penalty-\nReason, in assessment proceedings-Weight to be attached to.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nIn income-tax proceedings to the taxable income shown by the\nrespondent  in its return two items among others were  added\non  the basis that there were illicit sales of\talcohol\t and\nthat  certain  sales bad not been properly  accounted  'for.\nThereafter,  the Income-tax Officer,  Special  Investigation\nCircle,\t issued\t notice that he proposed to levy  a  penalty\nunder  s.  28(1)  (r) of the Income-tax Act,  1922,  as\t the\nrespondent  had\t concealed  particulars of  its\t income\t and\ndeliberately furnished inaccurate particulars.\tHe  rejected\nthe  explanation of the assessee and levied a  penalty.\t  In\nthe order levying penalty the Income-tax Officer stated that\nthe  reasons  for adding the disputed amounts in  the  total\nincome\tof  the assessee had been already discussed  in\t the\noriginal  order of assessment and that there was no need  to\nrepeat them.  The Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal\nconfirmed  the\tpenalty.  His approach to the case  was\t not\ndifferent and was based upon a guess that because there were\nmany  contiguous  dry  areas  the respondent  would   have\nsurreptitiously\t  sold\talcohol.   The\tAppellate   Tribunal\nconsidered the circumstances under which the additions\tcame\nto be made by the Department in the assessment\tproceedings,\nand the various points which were pressed before it and\t the\nAppellate Assistant Commissioner on behalf of the  assessee,\nand  held  that\t though\t there\tmight  be  certain  doubtful\ntransactions  it could not be stated that assessee had\tmade\nany   deliberate  attempt  at  concealment   regarding\t its\npharmaceutical\tsection,  and that, though  there  might  be\njustification\tfor   making  additions\t in   the   original\nassessment  order  those additions by themselves  could\t not\nlead to the conclusion that the respondent had concealed its\nincome\tor  that it had\t furnished  deliberately  inaccurate\nparticulars.  On the basis of those findings  the  Appellate\nTribunal  set aside the order levying penalty.\t Thereafter,\nthe Appellate Tribunal, holding that the reasons given by it\nfor setting aside the penalty proceedings were all based  on\nfindings  of fact and that no question of law arose  out  of\nthose findings, rejected an application by the appellant for\nreferring the question as to whether the Appellate  Tribunal\nwas  right  in cancelling the penalty.\tThe  appellant\tthen\nfiled an application under s. 66(2) of the Act but the\tHigh\nCourt dismissed it on the same ground.\nDismissing the appeal,\nHELD : The penalty proceedings being penal in character\t the\nDepartment must establish that the receipt of the amount  in\ndispute constitutes income of the assessee.  Apart from\t the\nfalsity\t of  any  explanation  given  by  the  assessee\t the\nDepartment  must have before it, be-fore levying a  penalty,\ncogent material or evidence from which it could he  inferred\nthat the assessee had consciously concealed the\t particulars\nof  his\t income\t or had\t deliberately  furnished  inaccurate\nparticulars.\tThe  original  assessment   proceeding\t for\ncomputing the tax is evidence in the penalty proceeding, but\nthe  penalty  cannot be levied solely on the  basis-'of\t the\nreasons given in the original assessment order. [853 B-D]\n\t\t\t    847\nIn  the\t present  case,\t except the  reasons  given  in\t the\noriginal  assessment order for including the disputed  items\nin the total income, the Department had no other material or\nevidence from which it could be reasonably inferred that the\nassessee had consciously concealed particulars of his income\nor  had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars.\t The\nAppellate  Tribunal made a correct and judicial approach  in\nconsidering the question whether the penalty provisions were\nattracted as against the respondent.  The conclusions  drawn\nby  the\t Appellate Tribunal were findings of  fact  recorded\nagainst the Department.\t Since on those findings of fact  no\nquestion  of  law  arose the High  Court  was  justified  in\nrejecting  the application filed by the appellant  under  s.\n66(2) of the Act. [852 B-E 853 E-F]\nCommissioner  of  Income-tax  West Bengal-1  v.\t Anwar\tAli,<\/a>\n[1970] 76 I.T.R. 696, followed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 648 of 1967.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nOctober\t 3, 1966 of the Mysore High Court in Civil  Petition
\nNo. 10 of 1966.\n<\/p>\n
R. H. Dhebar and J. Ramamurthi, for the appellant.
\nThe respondent did not appear.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nVaidialingam,  J.  This\t appeal, by special  leave,  by\t the
\nCommissioner of Income-,tax, Madras, is against the judgment
\nand order dated October 3, 1966 of the High Court of Mysore,
\nrejecting  the appellant’s application filed under s.  66(2)
\nof  the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter to be referred  as
\nthe  Act) for directing the Income–tax Appellate  Tribunal,
\nMadras Bench to refer the question of law to the High Court.
\nThe  question  of  law, which the  appellant  wanted  to  be
\nreferred was :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
\n\t      of the case the Appellate Tribunal was  right.
\n\t      in  cancelling  the  penalty of  Rs.  3  5,000
\n\t      levied  under  section 2 8 ( 1 )\t(c)  of\t the
\n\t      Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  respondent was a firm carrying on business of  manufac-
\nturing\tsilk,  carbon papers, type-writer  ribbons,  liquor,
\nspiriturous  drugs  and chemicals etc.\tIn  respect  of\t the
\nassessment  year 1955-56, the respondent had sent  a  return
\nshowing\t Rs. 51,214 as taxable income.\tOn looking into\t the
\naccounts  and  other records, the Income-,Lax  Officer\tmade
\nseveral\t additions  to the amount shown in  the\t return\t and
\nultimately  fixed the total assessable income in the sum  of
\nRs.  3,30,474.\t On appeal, the amount was reduced  and\t the
\ntaxable income was fixed in the sum of Rs. 2,09,575.  In the
\nfurther\t appeal by the assessee to the\tAppellate  Tribunal,
\nthere
\n848<\/span>
\nwas no alteration in this figure.  Only two items which were
\nadded to tilt income and which have been accepted by all the
\nauthorities required to be noticed.  They are :
\nPharmaceuticals, section-Rs. 77,518.00
\nChemicals section-Rs. 9,900.00.\n<\/p>\n
Relating  to the pharmaceuticals section, it is the view  of
\nthe Income-tax Officer that some of the sale bills  produced
\nby  the respondent were found to be forged ones and some  of
\nthe  purchasers\t of tincture were also\tfictitious  persons.
\nThere was no evidence produced by the assessee to show\tthat
\nthe   Kolae  powder,  which  was  very\tessential  for\t the
\nmanufacture of tincture had been purchased by it.  Hence the
\nIncome-tax Officer drew an inference that the respondent had
\nnot really manufactured tincture and that on the other\thand
\nthe firm must have sold all alcohol illicitly.
\nIt  was on this basis that the Income-tax Officer held\tthat
\nthe assessee must be considered to have omitted to show\t the
\nsum  of Rs. 77,588.  Similarly, regarding chemical  section,
\nthe  Income-tax\t Officer found that the respondent  has\t not
\naccounted  for a part of sale of Ethyl Acetate and  that  on
\nverification  it  Was  found that there\t has  been  a  large
\ndeficit\t of rectified spirit.  On this basis the  Income-tax
\nOfficer drew an inference that the firm has again secreted a
\nlarge quantity of rectified spirit under the cloak of  manu-
\nfacture of chemicals.  On the ground that certain sales\t had
\nnot  been properly accounted for, the sum of Rs.  9,900\t was
\nadded to the taxable income of the assessee.  It was on\t the
\nabove basis that the two items were included in ,,,he  total
\nassessable income of the assessee firm.\n<\/p>\n
These reasons given by the Income-tax Officer have been,  by
\nand large, accepted by the Appellate Assistant\tCommissioner
\nand  the  Income-tax  Appellate\t Tribunal.   The  Income-tax
\nOfficer, Special Investigation Circle A, Bangalore issued  a
\nnotice\tunder  s.  28(1)  to  the  respondent  that  it\t has
\nconcealed  the\tparticulars of its income  and\tdeliberately
\nfurnished  inaccurate  particulars in respect of  the  above
\namounts\t added to the total income and that  the  Income-tax
\nOfficer\t proposed to levy a penalty under S. 28 (1)  (c)  of
\nthe Act.  No doubt, in the notice certain other items, which
\nhad  already  been  added  to the  total  income  were\talso
\nreferred  to.\tBut those items have been deleted  from\t the
\npenalty proceedings by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
\nTherefore,  we\tare  only  concerned  with  the\t two  items,
\nreferred to earlier.\n<\/p>\n
The assessee sent a reply stating that it has not  concealed
\nthe  particulars  of  ‘its income nor  has  it\tdeliberately
\nfurnished  inaccurate  particulars  of\tsuch  income.\t The
\nexplanation  offered by theassessee was not accepted by\t the
\nIncome-tax Officer, and the latter
\n\t\t\t    849<\/span>
\nby  his order dated February 15, 1963 imposed a\t penalty  of
\nRs.  35,000 on the ground that the respondent had  concealed
\nthe  particulars of its income.\t That amount of penalty\t was
\nlevied by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that over and
\nabove  the  two items relating to  the\tPharmaceuticals\t and
\nChemical  sections,  there has been a concealment  of  three
\nmore items totalling Rs. 32,267. They were
\nSilk business; shortage in twisted silk yarn-Rs. 14,545.00
\nShortage in Artificial silk Rs. 3,434.00
\nCarbons;  Unaccounted consumption Rs. 14,288.00
\nIt was on this basis that the total penalty was levied.
\nOn  appeal  to\tthe Appellate  Assistant  Commissioner,\t the
\nlatter,\t no  doubt deleted these three items  totalling\t Rs.
\n32,267 from the penalty proceedings, but confirmed the order
\nof  the\t Income-tax Officer regarding the  two\tother  items
\nholding\t that  the omission by the assessee to\tinclude\t the
\nsaid  two items amounted to the firm concealing\t particulars
\nregarding  its\tincome under s. 28(1) (c) of the  Act.\t The
\npenalty\t amount\t levied by the Income-tax Officer  was\talso
\nconfirmed.   Though  the  Appellate  Assistant\tCommissioner
\nreduced the quantum of concealment-even assuming that  there
\nhas been a concealment-he did not make any reduction in\t the
\npenalty actually levied by the Income-tax Officer.
\nThe assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Income-
\ntax  Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench.\tThe  main  grievance
\nmade by the assessee was that there has been no\t independent
\nconsideration  by  the Income-tax Officer of  the  Appellate
\nAssistant Commissioner whether even on the basis that  there
\nhas  been an omission by it to include certain items in\t its
\nreturn, such omission came within s. 28 (1) (c) of the\tAct,
\nso  as to attract the levy of penalty.\tThe  assessee  also
\ncontended that both the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate
\nAssistant  Commissioner\t have mainly relied on\tthe  reasons
\ngiven in the order of assessment for adding these two  items
\nin  the total income.  According to the assessee  there\t has
\nbeen  no proper exercise of jurisdiction under s. 28 of\t the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by its order dated  Novem-
\nber  13, 1964 set aside the order of the Income-tax  Officer
\nas confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner levying
\npenalty on the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Commissioner of Income-tax filed an application under s.
\n66(1)  of the Act, requiring the Appellate Tribunal to\tdraw
\nup
\n850<\/span>
\na statement of the case and refer the question extracted  in
\nthe earlier part of the judgment, to be referred to the High
\nCourt.\t The Appellate Tribunal by its order dated  June  7,
\n1965  rejected the Said application on the ground  that\t the
\nreasons\t  given\t by  it\t for  setting  aside   the   penalty
\nproceedings  were all based on findings of fact and that  no
\nquestion of law arose out of those findings.
\nThe appellant filed an application before the High Court  of
\nMysore,\t under s. 66(2) for directions being issued  to\t the
\nAppellate Tribunal to, state the case and refer the question
\nof law,’ which the Appellate Tribunal has refused to  refer.
\nA  Division  Bench  of the High Court  by  its\torder  dated
\nOctober\t 3,  1966 dismissed the appellant’s  application  on
\n,,he ground that the finding of the Appellate Tribunal\tthat
\nthe  Income-tax\t Department  had failed to  prove  that\t the
\nassessee   had\t concealed  its\t income\t or  that   it\t had
\ndeliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of its  income
\nare  all on facts and that not question of law\tarises\tfrom
\nthe order of the Appellate Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  Dhebar, learned counsel for the appellant,\t urged\tthat
\nthe order of the High Court is erroneous.  According to\t him
\nthe  view of the High Court that the conclusions arrived  at
\nby  the\t Appellate  Tribunal are all on facts  and  that  no
\nquestion  of  law arises, is erroneous.\t The  counsel  urged
\nthat there has been an omission by the respondent to include
\nin  particular\ttwo items which are the subject\t of  penalty
\nproceedings  and the order of assessment in that regard\t has
\nbecome\tfinal.\tHence it follows that this is a\t case  where
\nthe assessee has concealed the particulars of its income  or
\nhas  deliberately  furnished inaccurate particulars  of\t its
\nincome.\t  Both\tthe  Income-tax\t Officer  as  well  as\t the
\nAppellate  Tribunal  have in the  penalty  proceedings\tgone
\nelaborately  into this aspect before levying  penalty.\t The
\napproach  made by the Appellate Tribunal when it  set  aside
\nthe  orders  levying  penalty  is  not\tjustified  in\tlaw.
\nTherefore, he urged that the High Court should have directed
\nthe  Appellate\tTribunal  to  state a  case  and  refer\t the
\nquestion of law as prayed for by the Appellant.
\nThe  respondent\t has not entered appearance before  us.\t  We
\nhave been taken through the entire proceedings leading up to
\nthe  order levying penalty.  We have also gone\tthrough\t the
\nreasons given by the Income-tax Officer for levying  penalty
\nas well as the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner
\nconfirming the same.  We cannot accept the contention of Mr.
\nDhebar\tthat the Appellate Tribual has summarily  interfered
\nwith  the orders levying penalty.  We have gone through\t the
\norder  of  the Appellate Tribunal and we find  that  it\t has
\nconsidered the circumstances under which the additions\tcame
\nto  be made by the Department in the assessment\t proceedings
\nas well as the points that were pressed before it, on behalf
\nof the assessee as well as the Appelate Assistant
\n\t\t\t    851<\/span>
\nCommissioner.  It is the view of the Appellate Tribunal that
\ntheDepartment has not established that the assessee has\t not
\nmanufactured  tincture\tand that it had sold  only  alcohol.
\nThis conclusion arrived at by the Income-tax Officer in\t the
\npenalty\t  proceedings is,  according-to\t  the\tAppellate
\nTribunal,   purely  one\t of  conjecture\t or  surmise.\t The
\nAppellate  Tribunal,  no doubt, was prepared to\t accept\t the
\ncontention  of\tthe  Department that there  were  a  lot  of
\ndoubtful circumstances.\t Notwithstanding these circumstances
\nthe  Appellate Tribunal is of the view that when  admittedly
\nthere  are  Excise  authorities\t in  the  premises  of\t the
\nrespondent, it is very difficult to hold that those officers
\nwould  have permitted tile assessee to utilise\tthe  alcohol
\nfor  other purposes.  The Appellate Tribunal has  also\theld
\nthat even the sale bills produced by the respondent, contain
\nthe  proper per it numbers given by the\t Excise\t authorities
\nand  that  the\tIncome-tax  Department\thave  not  made\t any
\ninquiries from the Excise authorities whether those relevant
\nsales  hive  been  made without\t their\tauthorisation.\t The
\nAppellate  rribunal has further held that there is no  stock
\ndiscrepancy  in\t Kola  Liquidum if  the\t transactions  art–
\nconsidered  as\ta whole for the entire\tperiod.\t  Therefore,
\nregarding  Pharmaceuticals  section the\t Appellate  Tribunal
\nfinally\t held  that  though there may  be  certain  doubtful
\ntransactions,  it  cannot be stated that the,  assessee\t has
\nmade  any deliberate attempt at concealment.  Regarding\t the
\nChemical section, the Appellate Tribunal is of the view that
\nthough\tthere may be justification for making  additions  in
\nthe  original  assessment order to the amount shown  in\t the
\nreturn,\t those\tadditions by themselves cannot lead  to\t the
\nconclusion  that the respondent has concealed its income  or
\nthat it has furnished deliberately inaccurate particulars.
\nIt  was\t on the basis of these findings that  the  Appellate
\nTribunal has set aside the order levying penalty.
\nOne  thing that strikes us when going through the order\t of
\nthe Income-tax Officer levying penalty and the order of\t the
\nAppellate  Assistant Commissioner confirming the said  levy,
\nis  that  there\t is not much of\t an  independent  discussion
\nregarding  the material question that has to be\t considered,
\nnamely,\t whether the firm has concealed the  particulars  of
\nits   income  or  whether  it  has  deliberately   furnished
\ninaccurate  particulars of such income.\t On the other  hand,
\nthe  Income-tax Officer after referring to  the\t explanation
\nfurnished by the assessee to the show cause notice,  clearly
\nsays  that the facts relating to the unaccounted items\thave
\nbeen  fully  discussed already in  the\trelevant  assessment
\norders\tfor  the  concerned assessment\tyear  and  that\t the
\nreasons\t given\ttherein need not be  repeated  again.\tThen
\nthere is only a very summary disposal of the plea raised  by
\nthe respondent that he has not concealed the particulars  of
\nhis  income,  nor has it deliberately  furnished  inaccurate
\nparticulars,
\n852<\/span>
\nof its income.\tThe approach made by the Appellate Assistant
\nCommissioner  is not far different from that of the  Income-
\ntax  Officer.  In fact the Appellate Assistant\tCommissioner
\nmakes  a further guess that in view of the fact\t that  there
\nwere  very many dry areas bordering Mysore,  the  respondent
\nwould have surreptitiously sold alcohol that was supplied to
\nit without using it for the purpose of making tincture.\t  It
\nis  the view of the Appellate Assistant\t Commissioner  that
\nthe  mere fact that there are Excise authorities to  control
\nthe  activities,  of persons like the assessee,\t is  of\t no
\nmaterial consequence.  From what we have stated above, it is
\nclear  that while there has been no proper approach made  by
\neither\tthe Income-tax Officer when he levied penalty or  by
\nthe  Appellate Assistant Commissioner when he confirmed\t the
\norder levying penalty, the Appellate Tribunal, on the  other
\nhand,  has  made  a very correct and  judicial\tapproach  in
\nconsidering the question whether the penalty provisions\t are
\nattracted as against the respondent.  After a very fair\t and
\nfull  consideration  of\t the  material\tcircumstances,\t the
\nAppellate Tribunal has set aside the order levying  penalty.
\nAs  rightly pointed out by the High Court,  the\t conclusions
\ndrawn by the Appellate Tribunal are all on findings of\tfact
\nrecorded  against  ,”-he Department.  On those\tfindings  of
\nfact,  there  was no question of law arising  for  reference
\nbeing  made to the High Court.\tUnder  those  circumstances,
\nthe  High  Court was perfectly justified  in  rejecting\t the
\napplication  filed  by the appellant under s. 66(2)  of\t the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
Before\twe  conclude we may refer to the  decision  of\tthis
\nCourt  in  Commissioner\t of Income-tax West  Bengal  I,\t and
\nAnother\t v. Anwar Ali<\/a>(1), wherein it has been held that\t one
\nof  the principal objects in enacting s. 28 is to provide  a
\ndeterrent  against recurrence of default on the part of\t the
\nassessee  and  that  s. 28 is penal in the  sense  that\t its
\nconsequences  are intended to be effective deter-rent  which
\nwould put a stop to the practices which the legislature con-
\nsiders\tto  be\tagainst the public interest.   It  has\tbeen
\nfurther\t held  that the Department must establish  that\t the
\nreceipt\t of the amount in dispute constitutes the income  of
\nthe  assessee and if there is no evidence on  record  except
\nthe explanation given by the assessee, which explanation has
\nbeen found to be false, it does not follow that the  receipt
\nconstitutes  its taxable income.  It has been further  held
\nthat  as the proceedings under s. 28 are of a  penal  nature
\nand the burden is on the Department that a particular amount
\nis  revenue receipt, it is legitimate to say that  the\tmere
\nfact that the explanation of the assessee is false, does not
\nnecessarily  give  rise to the inference that  the  disputed
\namount\trepresents the income.\tIt has been pointed  out  in
\nthe  said decision that the finding given in the  assessment
\nproceeding  for\t determining  or computing the\ttax  is\t not
\nconclusive
\n[1970]\t76 I.T.R. 696.\n<\/p>\n
85 3
\nthough it may be good evidence.\t It has been further held by
\nthis, Court in the above decision :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Before penalty can be imposed the entirety of
\n\t      circumstances  must  reasonably point  to\t the
\n\t      conclusion    that   the\t  disputed    amount
\n\t      represented  income and that the assessee\t had
\n\t      consciously  concealed the particulars of\t his
\n\t      income\tor   had   deliberately\t   furnished
\n\t      inaccurate particu- lars.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
From  the above it is clear that penalty  proceedings  being
\npenal  in character, the Department must establish that\t the
\nreceipt\t of the amount in dispute constitutes income of\t the
\nassessee.   Apart from the falsity of the explanation  given
\nby  the assessee, ‘he Department must have before it  before
\nlevying\t penalty cogent material or evidence from  which  it
\ncould  be  inferred  that-  the\t assessee  has\t consciously
\nconcealed the particulars of his income or had\tdeliberately
\nfurnished inaccurate particulars in respect of the same\t and
\nthat ,.the.- disputed amount is a revenue receipt.  No doubt
\nthe  original assessment proceedings, for computing the\t tax
\nmay be a good it,,, of evidence in the penalty\tproceedings;
\nbut the penalty cannot be levied solely on the basis of\t the
\nreasons given’-in the original order of assessment.
\nIn  the case before us we have already pointed out that\t in
\nthe  order  levying  penalty  the  Income-tax  Officer\t has
\ncategorically  stated  that  the  reasons  for\tadding\t the
\ndisputed  amounts in the total income of the  assessee\thave
\nbeen  already discussed in the original order of  assessment
\nand  that  they need not be repeated again.   The  Appellate
\nAssistant  Commissioner,  we have already pointed  out,\t has
\nmade only a guess work.\t That clearly shows that except\t the
\nreasons given in the original assessment order for including
\nthe  disputed items in the total income, the Department\t had
\nno  other  material  or\t evidence from\twhich  it  could  be
\nreasonably  inferred  that  the\t assessee  had\t consciously
\nconcealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately’
\nfurnished inaccurate particulars.\n<\/p>\n
For all the reasons given above, it follows that there is no
\nmerit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.  As the
\nrespondent  has not appeared, there will be no order  as  to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal\ndismissed.\n854<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs M\/S. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons on 22 September, 1971 Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 132, 1972 SCR (1) 846 Author: C Vaidyialingam Bench: Vaidyialingam, C.A. PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS Vs. RESPONDENT: M\/S. KHODAY ESWARSA & SONS DATE OF JUDGMENT22\/09\/1971 BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-235162","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M\/S. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons on 22 September, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-khoday-eswarsa-sons-on-22-september-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M\/S. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons on 22 September, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-khoday-eswarsa-sons-on-22-september-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1971-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-22T02:00:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-khoday-eswarsa-sons-on-22-september-1971#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-khoday-eswarsa-sons-on-22-september-1971\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs M\\\/S. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons on 22 September, 1971\",\"datePublished\":\"1971-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-22T02:00:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-khoday-eswarsa-sons-on-22-september-1971\"},\"wordCount\":2903,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-khoday-eswarsa-sons-on-22-september-1971#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-khoday-eswarsa-sons-on-22-september-1971\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-khoday-eswarsa-sons-on-22-september-1971\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M\\\/S. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons on 22 September, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1971-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-22T02:00:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-khoday-eswarsa-sons-on-22-september-1971#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-khoday-eswarsa-sons-on-22-september-1971\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-khoday-eswarsa-sons-on-22-september-1971#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs M\\\/S. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons on 22 September, 1971\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M\/S. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons on 22 September, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-khoday-eswarsa-sons-on-22-september-1971","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M\/S. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons on 22 September, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-khoday-eswarsa-sons-on-22-september-1971","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1971-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-22T02:00:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-khoday-eswarsa-sons-on-22-september-1971#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-khoday-eswarsa-sons-on-22-september-1971"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs M\/S. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons on 22 September, 1971","datePublished":"1971-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-22T02:00:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-khoday-eswarsa-sons-on-22-september-1971"},"wordCount":2903,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-khoday-eswarsa-sons-on-22-september-1971#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-khoday-eswarsa-sons-on-22-september-1971","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-khoday-eswarsa-sons-on-22-september-1971","name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs M\/S. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons on 22 September, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1971-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-22T02:00:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-khoday-eswarsa-sons-on-22-september-1971#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-khoday-eswarsa-sons-on-22-september-1971"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-khoday-eswarsa-sons-on-22-september-1971#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs M\/S. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons on 22 September, 1971"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235162","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=235162"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235162\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=235162"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=235162"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=235162"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}