9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income in the original return. 2. Whether the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was justified. Summary: Issue 1: Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars of Income The assessee, a registered firm, filed an original return on March 17, 1972, disclosing a business income of Rs. 64,234 for the assessment year 1971-72. During the examination, the Income-tax Officer found a credit of Rs. 10,000 in the name of Gopal Mudaliar, which was initially supported by a confirmatory letter. However, upon investigation, Gopal Mudaliar denied the loan. Consequently, the assessee filed a revised return on February 18, 1974, offering the Rs. 10,000 as income for assessment. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee filed the original return under a bona fide belief in the genuineness of the loan, supported by the confirmatory letter, and thus, did not furnish inaccurate particulars. Issue 2: Justification of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) The Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) on the grounds that the revised return was filed only after the Department's investigation. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the penalty, but the Tribunal cancelled it, stating that the assessee had a bona fide belief in the loan's genuineness when filing the original return. The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be charged with concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that the assessee's reliance on the confirmatory letter indicated no mala fide intention at the time of filing the original return. The High Court distinguished this case from others cited by the Department, where the facts indicated deliberate concealment or false statements. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not justified, and the Tribunal's order to cancel the penalty was affirmed. The question referred was answered in the affirmative and against the Department.
|
