9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Calculation of penalty based on the original or revised return. 2. Interpretation of section 28(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act regarding penalty for concealment of income. 3. Tribunal's authority to determine the quantum of penalty. Detailed Analysis: 1. The primary issue in this case was whether the penalty for concealment of income should be calculated based on the original return filed by the assessee or the revised return. The assessee initially filed a return showing a total income of Rs. 7,038 on 28th September, 1953. Subsequently, a revised return was filed on 18th October, 1953, declaring a total income of Rs. 24,528, including an addition of Rs. 17,548. The Income-tax authorities imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,500, contending that the penalty should be based on the original return. However, the Tribunal held that the penalty should be calculated based on the revised return, resulting in a penalty of nil. 2. The judgment focused on interpreting section 28(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, which deals with penalties for concealing income. The section states that the penalty should be a sum not exceeding one and a half times the amount of income tax and super-tax that would have been avoided if the income as returned had been accepted as correct. The court emphasized that the crucial factor is determining which return should be considered to assess the tax avoided. It was concluded that the return referred to in the section is the one in respect of which the penalty is imposed, as it would have led to tax avoidance if accepted. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in considering the revised return for calculating the penalty, absolving the assessee from liability. 3. Lastly, the judgment addressed the Tribunal's authority to determine the quantum of penalty. The respondent argued that the Tribunal did not consider the quantum of penalty due to its interpretation of the return to be considered for penalty calculation. However, the court clarified that its role was limited to answering the legal question referred and did not extend to remanding the matter back to the Tribunal for determining penalty quantum. The court stated that any further issues regarding penalty quantum should be raised before the Tribunal by the concerned party. In conclusion, the court answered the legal question in the affirmative, affirming that the penalty should be calculated based on the original return. The assessee was directed to pay the costs of the reference, and no further orders were issued regarding the penalty quantum determination or costs.
|
