9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Penalty proceedings for the assessment year 1963-64. 2. Penalty proceedings for the assessment year 1964-65. Summary: Issue 1: Penalty Proceedings for the Assessment Year 1963-64 The penalties were initially levied by the IAC in separate orders for two assessment years. The Tribunal considered the penalties in a common order but the court preferred to consider them separately. The assessee, a registered partnership firm, had its original assessment for 1963-64 reopened on the grounds of income escaping assessment. The original return disclosed an income of Rs. 47,086, which was later revised to Rs. 58,291 in response to the reassessment notice. The assessee admitted in a petition u/s 271(4A) that its books of account were fabricated and did not disclose the true state of affairs, including the sale of import licences and imported yarn. The ITO, rejecting the revised return, estimated the income at Rs. 98,042 and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). The IAC held the assessee guilty of concealment of income based on its admissions and imposed a penalty. The Tribunal, however, cancelled the penalty, reasoning that the reassessment involved substituting one estimate for another. The court disagreed, emphasizing that the penalty was for the original return filed in October 1963, which concealed income. The Tribunal's omission to consider the original return's veracity was a significant oversight. The court held that the assessee's original return was an act of deliberate concealment, warranting a penalty, and thus, the Tribunal erred in cancelling the penalty for 1963-64. Issue 2: Penalty Proceedings for the Assessment Year 1964-65 For 1964-65, the assessee disclosed profits from the sale of licences and art-silk yarn in its revised return, estimating the income at Rs. 77,924, which the ITO later estimated at Rs. 1,47,500. The IAC imposed a penalty of Rs. 12,000, citing the assessee's failure to disclose particulars of sales and brokers. The Tribunal, however, noted the voluntary disclosure and the estimation nature of the income, concluding there was no concealment or fraud. The court agreed with the Tribunal, emphasizing the voluntary and full disclosure by the assessee and the absence of fraud or wilful neglect. The Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty for 1964-65 was upheld. Conclusion: The court answered the referred question by stating that the Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1964-65 but was not right in cancelling the penalty for the assessment year 1963-64. No order as to costs was made.
|
