9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment addresses the cancellation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on various legal and procedural aspects raised in the departmental reference. Question 1: The Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was challenged. The court examined whether the Tribunal was correct in law in doing so. Question 2: The court considered whether the charge of filing inaccurate particulars was sustainable, given that the assessee disclosed prize money receipt in the return, thus making the basic fact known for assessment. Question 3: The court analyzed the absence of the primary ingredient for initiating penalty proceedings, as the Income-tax Officer did not record his satisfaction during the assessment proceedings. Question 4: The correctness of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's application of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) was questioned, and the court assessed whether it was done in accordance with the law. Question 5: The court examined whether the assessee was given a fair opportunity when the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) was invoked by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, considering the notice issued. Question 6: The rejection of the Revenue's miscellaneous application by the Tribunal, which sought to establish that the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) was invoked and the assessee was given an opportunity to refute the charge, was reviewed. Judgment Details: The court focused on question No. 3 as the fundamental issue. The assessment under section 144 of the Income-tax Act revealed a significant disparity between the declared income and the computed total income. Although section 271(1)(c) was not explicitly mentioned by the Income-tax Officer, a substantial penalty was imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. During the appeal, it was argued that the Income-tax Officer did not express satisfaction regarding the applicability of section 271(1)(c) during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal accepted this argument, emphasizing the necessity of the Income-tax Officer's satisfaction for penalty imposition. The legal representatives presented contrasting views, with the Revenue emphasizing income concealment and the assessee citing precedents to support non-establishment of concealment when income was disclosed in the return. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. S. V. Angidi Chettiar [1962] 44 ITR 739, emphasizing the requirement for the Income-tax Officer's satisfaction before penalty imposition. As no evidence indicated the Officer's satisfaction in this case, the court concluded that section 271(1)(c) penalties were not applicable. Consequently, the court answered question No. 3 in favor of the assessee, leading to the quashing of the penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. No costs were awarded in this matter.
|
