9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: The issues involved in this case are (i) whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding the penalty for concealment of income, (ii) the applicability of Explanation 2 to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, and (iii) whether the penalty proceedings are barred by limitation.
Judgment Summary: Concealment of Income Issue: The petitioner, a partnership firm, initially disclosed a total income of Rs. 2,74,510 for the year 1983-84. Subsequently, after certain discrepancies were pointed out by the Income-tax Officer, the petitioner filed a revised return on December 22, 1984, showing an enhanced income of Rs. 2,50,000. However, it was found that this revised return was not voluntary and was filed after inquiries were made by the Income-tax Officer. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal concluded that the filing of the revised return was an admission of concealed income, not a genuine revision. The Tribunal also noted that the revised return was not filed voluntarily before the concealment was detected. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the concealment of income had indeed occurred. Applicability of Explanation 2 to Section 271(1)(c): The Income-tax Officer discovered that Rs. 2,50,000 was credited to the partners' accounts for the assessment year 1984-85, with the explanation that it represented additional income offered for assessment in the previous year 1983-84. This amount was considered concealed income by the authorities, including the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal. They held that Explanation 2 to section 271(1)(c) applied as the undisclosed income was credited to the partners' accounts in the subsequent year. Limitation of Penalty Proceedings: The petitioner argued that the penalty proceedings were time-barred. However, the Tribunal found that the penalty proceedings were initiated at the time of passing the assessment order in December 1984, which was not denied by the petitioner. Therefore, the contention regarding the limitation of penalty proceedings was dismissed. In conclusion, the High Court held that no questions of law arose from the Tribunal's order, and thus dismissed the original petition filed by the assessee.
|
