1986 (12) TMI 29 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved: Assessment of undisclosed income, imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, voluntary disclosure by the assessee, justification for cancelling the penalty.

Assessment of Undisclosed Income: The assessee, a partnership firm, disclosed loans from different parties as income in a voluntary disclosure made after filing the return for the assessment year 1963-64. The Income-tax Officer added the peak credit amount and interest paid on the loans to the total income of the assessee during assessment.

Imposition of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,27,810 on the assessee for concealing income and furnishing inaccurate particulars by not disclosing the income under the disclosure scheme and claiming deduction of interest on fictitious loans.

Voluntary Disclosure and Tribunal's Decision: The assessee contended before the Tribunal that the voluntary disclosure made before any enquiry by the Revenue should negate the application of section 271(1)(c) for penalty imposition. The Tribunal found that the assessee had made a full disclosure before any steps were taken by the Income-tax Officer, and since the assessment did not exceed the disclosed amount, the penalty was unjustified.

Justification for Cancelling Penalty: The Tribunal, considering the nature of the breach as venial and pardonable, cited the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, emphasizing that penalty imposition should be discretionary and based on relevant circumstances. The Tribunal canceled the penalty, noting that the breach was not deliberate and the subsequent conduct of the assessee absolved it of intentional concealment.

Court's Decision: The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that though a technical default may have occurred, the subsequent conduct of the assessee indicated no deliberate intention to conceal income. The Court emphasized that penalty imposition is not mandatory in every case and should be based on established conditions. The question of cancelling the penalty was answered in favor of the assessee, with no costs imposed.