1980 (11) TMI 9 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Levy of penalty for concealment of income on all four heads.
2. Application of Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Applicability of provisions of s. 271(1)(c) as amended from April 1, 1968, to a case where the original return was filed before April 1, 1968.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal upheld the levy of penalty for concealment of income on all four heads. The assessee filed a revised return correcting a typing error, but the income concealment was found to exist in both the original and revised returns. The Tribunal concluded that income was indeed concealed, and the penalty was justified. The court agreed with the Tribunal's finding, emphasizing that there was sufficient material to support the concealment of income. The decision in Dayabhai & Co. v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 364 was cited by the assessee, but it was deemed irrelevant to the current case. The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision on this issue, ruling in favor of upholding the penalty.

2. The second question regarding the application of the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) did not arise from the Tribunal's order as it was not raised during the proceedings. Therefore, the court declined to answer this question, stating that it was not a valid issue for consideration.

3. The Tribunal determined that the concealment occurred when the original return was filed, not when the revised return was submitted. As penalty proceedings were initiated based on the concealment in the original return, the amended provisions of s. 271(1)(c) from April 1, 1968, were deemed inapplicable. The court agreed with the Tribunal's reasoning on this matter, concluding that the provisions of s. 271(1)(c) as amended in 1968 did not apply to this case. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the Department on this issue.

In conclusion, the court upheld the penalty for income concealment, declined to address the issue of the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c), and determined that the amended provisions of s. 271(1)(c) from April 1, 1968, were not applicable in this case. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in this reference.