9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Reduction of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 without adequate justification. Analysis: For the assessment year 1981-82, the appellant contested the reduction of the penalty from Rs. 1,04,550 to Rs. 19,810 by the ld. CIT(A) without sufficient justification. Similarly, for the assessment year 1982-83, the penalty was reduced from Rs. 81,375 to Rs. 14,600 without proper reasoning. The appeals were consolidated for convenience due to common grounds. The assessment for 1981-82 revealed various income components, including routine business income, surrendered income under section 132(12), cash credits, loans, and lump sum additions. The total income assessed was Rs. 1,42,315, leading to the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the entire assessed income. The ld. CIT(A) considered the explanation provided and concluded that there was only concealment of income amounting to Rs. 30,020. It was noted that since the return of income was filed after a search operation, there was no substantive concealment by the assessee. For the assessment year 1982-83, discrepancies were found post-search, including investments, unexplained cash, loans, and transactions outside the books of account. The assessee failed to disclose these items in the return, leading to additions confirmed by the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer held that inaccurate particulars of income were furnished to the extent of Rs. 1,03,250. Both parties presented their arguments, and the tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that penalties were justifiable for concealing income particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars in the returns. The tribunal noted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) could only be imposed for undisclosed income, as per the inserted Explanation 5 effective from 1-10-1984. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce the penalties to Rs. 19,810 and Rs. 14,600 for the respective assessment years was upheld, as the disclosed income was not subject to penalty. Therefore, the appeals of the revenue were dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s orders for both years.
|
