1982 (11) TMI 44 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of restricting penalties to 25% of the tax evaded.
2. Applicability of the amended provisions of s. 271(1)(c).
3. Validity and effect of the Commissioner's order regarding penalty.

Summary:

1. Justification of Restricting Penalties to 25% of the Tax Evaded:
The Tribunal held that there was a "package deal" between the assessee and the Department, where the assessee agreed to be assessed on additional income over eight years, and the Commissioner agreed to impose a penalty of only 25% of the tax sought to be evaded. The Tribunal applied the principle from the Supreme Court case of Anglo Afghan Agencies, AIR 1968 SC 718, stating that the promise made by the Commissioner should be upheld. The Tribunal restricted the penalties to 25% of the tax sought to be evaded for the assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63.

2. Applicability of the Amended Provisions of s. 271(1)(c):
The Tribunal concluded that the penalty should be imposed based on the law as it stood during the relevant assessment years, not the amended provisions of s. 271(1)(c) introduced by the Finance Act of 1968. The Supreme Court in Brij Mohan v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 1 clarified that the law at the time of the wrongful act of concealment is applicable. Since the concealment occurred in the original returns filed before the amendment, the pre-1968 provisions applied, which calculated the penalty based on the tax sought to be evaded.

3. Validity and Effect of the Commissioner's Order Regarding Penalty:
The Tribunal treated the Commissioner's order dated November 30, 1970, as an order under s. 271(4A) passed suo motu, even though the formal application under this section was rejected. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner was competent to reduce the penalty and that the Department was bound by the promise made. The Tribunal also noted that the returns filed under s. 148 in February-March 1970 were part of the settlement process and did not constitute a fresh concealment.

Conclusion:
The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the penalty should be restricted to 25% of the tax sought to be evaded, based on the pre-1968 provisions of s. 271(1)(c). The court found no error in the Tribunal's conclusion and emphasized that the Department should not have pursued the reference further, as the Tribunal had merely upheld the Commissioner's order. The question referred to the court was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee.