1992 (10) TMI 29 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of technical mistake in accounting regarding goods in transit.
2. Concealment of income with reference to revised return.
3. Reduction of penalty imposed as per provisions of law applicable.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Assessment of technical mistake in accounting regarding goods in transit
The case involved a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1968-69. The assessee had obtained an import license for nickel anodes, but the goods were not received during the relevant accounting year. The assessee paid clearing charges and debited the entire amount to the goods account but failed to include the value of the goods in the closing stock. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal found a technical mistake in accounting regarding the amount of Rs. 30,863 for goods in transit. The Tribunal held that since the goods were in transit, the assessee need not show the value in the closing stock. However, the Tribunal noted that the non-disclosure of Rs. 8,500 paid for clearing charges could not be considered a technical mistake as it was actually paid. Despite this, the Tribunal concluded that the omission regarding the Rs. 30,863 was bona fide. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the finding of a bona fide omission was a factual determination, and no interference was warranted.

Issue 2: Concealment of income with reference to revised return
The Tribunal found the assessee guilty of concealment of income only with reference to the revised return. The assessee had increased the income by Rs. 30,863 in the revised return but did not include the Rs. 8,500 paid for clearing charges. The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to disclose the Rs. 8,500 amount constituted concealment of income, as it was not reflected in the closing stock. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's finding of concealment in this regard.

Issue 3: Reduction of penalty imposed as per provisions of law applicable
The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had initiated penalty proceedings for the total amount of Rs. 39,363 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal, considering the technical mistake in accounting and the concealment of income with reference to the revised return, held that the penalty should be reduced as per the provisions of law applicable on the date of filing the revised return. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision to reduce the penalty accordingly.

In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee on all the issues raised in the reference, holding that the assessee's omission regarding the goods in transit was bona fide and that the penalty imposed should be reduced in accordance with the applicable provisions of the law.