9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 seeking direction to Tribunal to state the case and refer proposed question of law. - Justification of deleting penalty under section 271(1)(c) and applicability of Explanation 1 to section 271(1). - Tribunal's decision to delete penalty based on voluntary surrender before detection of concealment. - Tribunal's refusal to state the case due to no concealment of income and conclusion based on factual appreciation. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an application filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax seeking direction to the Tribunal to refer a question of law regarding the deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1985-86. The assessee initially declared income as Rs. 13,850, later revised it to Rs. 49,880 after being asked for details of claimed expenses. Penalty proceedings were initiated, and despite objections, a penalty of Rs. 15,000 was levied, which was later deleted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT, emphasizing that admission of income does not necessarily imply deliberate concealment, and the Revenue must prove mens rea for a quasi-criminal offense. The Tribunal, in its decision to delete the penalty, highlighted that the assessee voluntarily surrendered the revised return before any concealment could be detected, indicating no conscious concealment of income. The Tribunal concluded that the facts did not give rise to any question of law and declined to state the case. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's approach, emphasizing that the conclusion was based on factual appreciation, and no conscious concealment was evident. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty was upheld as correct, with the High Court affirming that the question did not arise from the Tribunal's order. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the application without costs, acknowledging the soundness of the Tribunal's order and the absence of any legal question arising from the case. The judgment underscores the importance of proving mens rea for penalty under section 271(1)(c) and the significance of voluntary disclosure in determining the absence of deliberate concealment of income.
|
