9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on concealed income of Rs. 9,000 when the assessed income was Rs. 2,200. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the assessee had concealed capital gains of Rs. 9,000, but the assessed income was determined to be Rs. 2,200 after deductions during the assessment year 1969-70. The Income-tax Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 9,000, considering it as the minimum amount of penalty imposable since the concealed income was of the same amount. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner reversed this decision, leading to an appeal by the Department before the Tribunal, which upheld the penalty. The question referred to the High Court was whether the Tribunal was justified in imposing a penalty of Rs. 9,000 when the additional tax assessed was only on an income of Rs. 2,200. The crux of the issue revolved around the interpretation of the term "income" under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Department argued that since "income" includes "capital gains chargeable under section 45," the entire sum of Rs. 9,000 should be considered as income for penalty calculation purposes. However, the assessee contended that the taxable income of Rs. 2,200, as determined after deductions, should be the basis for quantifying the penalty amount, not the gross capital gains. The High Court analyzed the legislative history of the relevant provisions and previous judicial interpretations. It noted that while section 2(24) defines "income" broadly, for tax purposes, it is the taxable income after deductions that forms the basis for determining tax liability. Referring to a past decision of the Lahore High Court, the Court highlighted that "income" in tax laws encompasses the assessable figure after legitimate deductions. The Court further examined the amendments to section 271(1)(c) over the years and emphasized that the taxable income, not gross income, should be considered for penalty calculation. It held that during the relevant period, the term "income" in the penalty provision referred to taxable income. Additionally, the Court emphasized that in cases of ambiguity, interpretations favoring the taxpayer should be adopted, especially in penalty provisions. Consequently, the High Court concluded that the penalty should be based on the assessed taxable income of Rs. 2,200, not the total capital gains of Rs. 9,000. Therefore, it ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the Tribunal was not justified in imposing a penalty of Rs. 9,000 when the additional tax assessed was only on an income of Rs. 2,200. The judgment favored the assessee, and no costs were awarded in the case.
|
