1983 (9) TMI 27 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Legality of the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty based on estimated additions to income.
3. Determination of quantum of penalty.

Summary:

1. Applicability of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The primary issue was whether the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are attracted to the assessee's case for the assessment year 1966-67. The assessee, a film producer, had filed a return disclosing a business income of Rs. 6,995. However, during a search, incriminating documents were found, leading the ITO to add Rs. 50,000 as omitted income and Rs. 1,53,159 as various credits, computing the total income at Rs. 2,00,000. The AAC deleted the addition of Rs. 1,53,159 but sustained the Rs. 50,000 addition. The Tribunal later restricted this addition to Rs. 25,000. The IAC initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), concluding that the assessee had concealed income. The Tribunal, however, set aside the penalty, reasoning that the addition was based on an estimate and did not indicate contumacious conduct by the assessee.

2. Legality of the Tribunal's Decision to Set Aside the Penalty Based on Estimated Additions to Income:
The court examined whether the Tribunal's view that s. 271(1)(c) is not applicable when additions are made based on estimates is legally tenable. The court held that the Tribunal's view is inconsistent with the statutory provision in s. 271(1)(c) and previous decisions. The court noted that the assessee's return, if accepted, would have resulted in an underestimation of income. The additions were based on entries in a seized note book, not on mere estimates. The court cited several cases, including Cement Distributors Private Ltd. v. CIT, Bashu Sahib v. CIT, Addl. CIT v. Bhoopathy, Rathnam and Co. v. IAC, and CIT v. Mir Mohamed Ali, where penalty provisions were applied even when assessments were based on estimates. The court concluded that the Tribunal's decision runs counter to these precedents.

3. Determination of Quantum of Penalty:
The court remitted the matter to the Tribunal to determine the quantum of penalty, as the Tribunal had not addressed this issue, having set aside the penalty on the ground that s. 271(1)(c) was not applicable. The court sustained the penalty proceedings and directed the Tribunal to determine the appropriate penalty amount.

Conclusion:
The court answered the question in the negative and against the assessee, holding that s. 271(1)(c) is applicable even when additions to income are based on estimates. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal to determine the quantum of penalty. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the Revenue, with a counsel's fee of Rs. 500.