2003 (11) TMI 11 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty - It cannot be said that there has been concealment of particulars or that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars as the particulars had in fact been given, the figures not being disputed, but under a different head - fact that the Revenue did not agree with the assessee s view that the discount to be given by it to its customers which was to take effect in future years could be shown as an amount due to sundry debtors, would not by itself justify a finding that the assessee had concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars - we do not find sufficient justification for the imposition of the penalty

Summary

Issues: Assessment of undisclosed income and imposition of penalty for alleged concealment.

The judgment pertains to the assessment year 1985-86 where the assessee, engaged in the business of photographic films, declared a total income of Rs. 25,02,120. The assessee showed an amount of Rs. 19,19,622 as due from sundry creditors in its balance sheet, representing discounts given to customers on future purchases. The Tribunal confirmed the discounts given during the relevant accounting years and the amount still held by the assessee as of March 31, 1989. The Assessing Officer brought this amount to tax, leading to an appeal by the assessee, which was later withdrawn, and the tax was paid. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 13,89,339 was imposed on the assessee for alleged concealment of income, which was later set aside on appeal. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which reinstated the penalty, prompting the assessee to bring the matter before the High Court.

The counsel for the assessee contended that the Tribunal erred in concluding that there was concealment, as the assessee had disclosed the figures it believed to be accurate. The court emphasized that the disagreement between the assessee and the Revenue does not automatically imply concealment, especially if the assessee acted in good faith and reported the information it deemed correct. The court highlighted that the intent behind the actions of the assessee is crucial in determining concealment, as deliberate intent to hide relevant facts is essential. While acknowledging the duty of assessees to ensure accuracy in their returns, the court stressed that penalties should not be imposed unless there is clear evidence of deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

Ultimately, the court found no sufficient justification for imposing the penalty in this case. It noted that the particulars were provided by the assessee, albeit under a different classification, and the figures were not disputed. As a result, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order and ruling in favor of the assessee.