9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in canceling the penalty and confirming the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order. 2. Whether the assessee discharged the burden of proof. 3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee's explanation substantiated with the increase in turnover. 4. Whether the case falls under clause (B) of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) and if the Tribunal's order was vitiated. 5. Whether the penalty order was valid and in accordance with law. 6. Whether the concept of conscious concealment applies in a case where Explanation is applicable. Judgment Details: For the assessment year 1983-84, the assessee, an abkari licensee, returned an income of Rs.55,920 which was later reduced to Rs.2,68,180 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) alleging concealment of income, imposing a penalty of Rs.1,50,000. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) canceled the penalty, stating no conscious concealment occurred. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the need for conscious concealment for penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Revenue appealed, arguing that the Tribunal's reliance on a Full Bench decision was no longer valid due to a Supreme Court ruling. The High Court noted that the burden of proof lay on the assessee in penalty proceedings. The Court found that the assessee had concealed income, as evidenced by additions made by authorities. The explanation provided by the assessee was disbelieved, leading to the conclusion that penalty under section 271(1)(c) applied. The Court held that the Assessing Officer was justified in imposing the penalty, criticizing the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal for interfering with the penalty levy. The Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, setting aside the Tribunal and Commissioner's orders, and reinstated the Assessing Officer's penalty order. In conclusion, the Court found that the Tribunal's decision was erroneous, and the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was valid under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.
|
