Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 1979 (10) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1979 (10) TMI 15 - HC - Income Tax

Issues:
1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in setting aside the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?
2. Whether the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to refer the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for the penalty?
3. Whether the finding that the income of Rs. 20,000 was only chargeable to tax as income from an undisclosed source in the assessment year 1971-72 is correct and sustainable?

Analysis:
The case involved an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the Commissioner of Income-tax sought to refer questions of law to the High Court. The Tribunal had set aside a penalty of Rs. 20,000 under section 271(1)(c) imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal found that the investment in question was not conclusively established to be made from undisclosed income, leading to the penalty being vacated.

The facts of the case revealed that the assessee had initially declared a nil income for the assessment year 1971-72 but later agreed to include a sum of Rs. 20,000 as his income from an undisclosed source. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's actions seemed aimed at avoiding higher taxation in any particular year rather than actual concealment of income. The Tribunal concluded that no penalty was justifiable based on the available evidence.

The High Court emphasized the need to establish concealment of income conclusively before levying a penalty. Referring to a previous Supreme Court decision, the court highlighted that the mere inclusion of income by the assessee, possibly to avoid prolonged litigation or higher taxation, does not automatically warrant a penalty for concealment. In this case, besides the addition of Rs. 20,000, there was insufficient evidence to support a penalty for concealment.

Ultimately, the High Court discharged the rule, ruling in favor of the assessee and directing the Commissioner to bear the costs of the application. The judgment underscored the importance of establishing actual concealment of income before imposing penalties under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates