1982 (1) TMI 14 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of Rs. 59,000 out of Rs. 1,18,000 added under "Other sources" representing unexplained investment in gold bars.
2. Validity of the Appellate Tribunal's finding.
3. Reduction of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) from Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 6,000.
4. Imposition of penalty on the addition of Rs. 59,000 sustained under "Other sources" u/s 69A.
5. Whether the addition of Rs. 59,000 sustained was the assessee's concealed income.

Summary:

1. Deletion of Rs. 59,000 out of Rs. 1,18,000 added under "Other sources" representing unexplained investment in gold bars:
The Tribunal concluded that only Rs. 59,000 should be added to the income, based on the inference that the proceeds from the sale of 25 gold bars in February 1971 could have been used to acquire another consignment of 25 gold bars in March 1971. This inference was supported by ample material on record, and the Tribunal's decision to reduce the addition by one-half was upheld.

2. Validity of the Appellate Tribunal's finding:
The Tribunal's finding was based on valid materials and a reasonable view of the facts. The High Court respected the Tribunal's factual inference, considering it as the ultimate fact-finding body.

3. Reduction of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) from Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 6,000:
The Tribunal observed that the evidence on record was inadequate to levy a penalty for concealment of income. They sustained a penalty of Rs. 6,000, estimating a profit margin from the sale of 25 gold bars in February 1971, and deleted the balance of Rs. 1,94,000 from the penalty order.

4. Imposition of penalty on the addition of Rs. 59,000 sustained under "Other sources" u/s 69A:
The Tribunal held that s. 69A, by itself, cannot support an order of penalty. The Tribunal's decision to reduce the penalty was based on the evaluation of relevant materials, and the High Court found no error of law in this decision.

5. Whether the addition of Rs. 59,000 sustained was the assessee's concealed income:
The Tribunal's decision to sustain Rs. 59,000 as the unexplained investment was based on a reasonable view of the facts. The High Court found no scope for interference with the Tribunal's conclusion, both in the matter of assessment and penalty.

Conclusion:
The High Court answered all the questions of law against the Department and in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs.