9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income and the applicability of Explanation 1 clauses (A) and (B) in the context of the case. Summary: Issue 1: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act The case pertains to an individual engaged in a proprietary business of job-work in leather tanning. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act due to alleged concealment of income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the penalty but reduced the quantum. Subsequently, the Tribunal canceled the penalty, stating that the ingredient of section 271(1)(c) was not present, despite justifying the addition in the quantum appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that more than the rejection of explanations is needed to support the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Issue 2: Interpretation of Explanation 1 of section 271(1)(c) During the penalty proceedings, it was noted that the assessee did not respond to the show-cause notice, indicating a lack of explanation or rebuttal. The Income-tax Officer highlighted the presence of mens rea and deliberateness in the concealment of income. The Tribunal, however, omitted to consider clause (A) of Explanation 1 of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which deems concealed income when an explanation is false or unsubstantiated. The Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty was based on the absence of the ingredient of section 271(1)(c), overlooking the applicability of Explanation 1. In conclusion, the High Court ruled against the assessee, stating that the Tribunal erred in deleting the penalty as clause (A) of Explanation 1 was applicable. The judgment underscores the importance of considering all relevant provisions and explanations in penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
|
