1984 (1) TMI 10 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars u/s 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1960-61.
2. Legality of penalty cancellation u/s 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1962-63.

Summary:

Issue 1: Concealment of Income and Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars u/s 271(1)(c) for the Assessment Year 1960-61
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the question of whether the assessee had concealed particulars of its income or furnished inaccurate particulars within the meaning of section 271(1)(c), leading to a penalty of Rs. 50,000. The assessee, M/s. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., had discrepancies in its accounts, particularly in the Central Marketing Organisation account, where expenses were debited without proper profit and loss accounts or balance sheets. The Income-tax Officer added back certain expenditures, including those on furniture and fans, treating them as capital expenditures. The Tribunal allowed some claims but upheld the penalty. The court noted that the mere disallowance of a claim does not infer deliberate concealment. The assessee's bona fide belief that the expenditures were revenue in nature was not adequately considered by the Tribunal. The court concluded that the Revenue failed to prove conscious and deliberate concealment, thus answering the question in favor of the assessee.

Issue 2: Legality of Penalty Cancellation u/s 271(1)(c) for the Assessment Year 1962-63
For the assessment year 1962-63, the Tribunal had canceled a penalty of Rs. 3,41,000. The Income-tax Officer had disallowed certain expenditures, treating them as capital expenditures. The Tribunal found that some disallowances were deleted in the quantum appeal, and accepted the assessee's explanations for others. The court upheld the Tribunal's approach, noting that the Revenue did not prove deliberate concealment or suppression of income. The court found no error in the Tribunal's conclusion and answered the question in favor of the assessee.

Conclusion:
The court held that no case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was made out for both assessment years. The questions were answered in the negative for the assessment year 1960-61 and in the affirmative for the assessment year 1962-63, both in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs was made.