9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Detailed Analysis: The High Court of Calcutta dealt with a case involving the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1962-63. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) added back a significant amount to the total income of the assessee and initiated penalty proceedings due to the substantial sum involved. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) concluded that the assessee had concealed income related to interest and brokerage on hundi loans and stocks shown in the balance-sheet. A penalty of Rs. 54,000 was imposed based on this assessment. The assessee challenged the penalty order before the Tribunal, arguing that the disclosed amount under section 68 of the Finance Act, 1965 covered the interest and brokerage on hundi loans. Additionally, it was contended that there was no concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars by the assessee. Reference was made to the decision in Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 to support the argument against the penalty. Regarding the discrepancy in stock valuation, reliance was placed on the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. Gokuldas Harivallabhdas [1958] 34 ITR 98. The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that while the assessee had initially filed a loss return, the final assessment showed a total income after additions and disallowances. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to prove concealment of income, thus aligning with the decision in Anwar Ali. Consequently, the penalty order by the IAC was canceled by the Tribunal. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the Revenue did not meet the burden of proving concealment of income. The Court highlighted that the assessment was completed before the addition of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c), and based on the findings and nature of the case, the Tribunal's conclusion was deemed justified. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside in favor of the assessee, and each party was directed to bear their own costs. Judge Suhas Chandra Sen concurred with the judgment delivered by Judge Sabyasachi Mukherjee.
|
