1983 (7) TMI 36 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the filing of revised returns voluntarily exonerates the assessee from penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
2. Whether the Tribunal's finding that the assessee filed revised returns voluntarily and disclosed income is perverse and unreasonable.
3. Correct computation of penalty for the assessment year 1967-68.

Summary:

Issue 1: Voluntary Filing of Revised Returns and Penalty u/s 271(1)(c)
The Tribunal held that "filing of revised returns voluntarily by the assessee will exonerate the assessee from the penal provision under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961." However, the High Court found this approach fundamentally erroneous. The Court emphasized that a mere filing of a revised return does not automatically absolve the assessee from penalty if the original return was deliberately dishonest. The Court cited various precedents, including Arunachalam Chettyar v. CIT and CIT v. J. K. A. Subramania Chettiar, to support its stance that the intention behind the original return is crucial. The High Court concluded that the Tribunal oversimplified the issue and applied incorrect legal principles. Therefore, the High Court answered the first question in the negative, in favor of the Department and against the assessee.

Issue 2: Tribunal's Finding on Voluntary Disclosure
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's filing of revised returns was voluntary and thus negated any concealment. The High Court found this conclusion unreasonable as the Tribunal applied incorrect principles of law. The High Court noted that the Tribunal did not adequately consider the assessee's explanation and was influenced by irrelevant considerations. The matter was directed to be re-examined by the Tribunal in light of the correct legal principles.

Issue 3: Computation of Penalty for 1967-68
The Tribunal reduced the penalty to Rs. 6,000, noting that the income under the concealed head as returned by the assessee was only Rs. 5,982, despite acknowledging that the minimum penalty should be Rs. 14,242. The High Court found this computation erroneous, stating that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should be based on the correct income, which was fixed at Rs. 14,242. The High Court answered the third question in the negative, against the assessee and in favor of the Department.

Conclusion:
The High Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the appeals afresh in light of the correct legal principles and the discussion provided. The references were answered accordingly, and a copy of the judgment was ordered to be forwarded to the Appellate Tribunal.