9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assessment of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on revised return filed after survey - Justification of cancellation of penalty by Tribunal - Question of law regarding concealment by the assessee. Analysis: The case involved a petition under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 concerning the assessment year 1987-88. Initially, the assessee declared an income of Rs. 44,080 but later revised it to Rs. 1,89,580 after a survey at the business premises. The assessment fixed the taxable income at Rs. 1,91,500 under section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, a penalty of Rs. 70,000 was imposed on the assessee, leading to an appeal process. The Tribunal reversed the penalty, prompting the revenue to file a petition under section 256(2) questioning the cancellation of the penalty. The key legal question raised by the revenue was whether the Tribunal was justified in canceling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Rs. 70,000, considering the filing of the revised return post-survey as an admission of concealment by the assessee. The revenue argued that the revised return itself indicated concealment. However, the respondent's counsel contended otherwise, citing relevant case laws to support their position. The Tribunal's findings emphasized the lack of concrete evidence proving concealment beyond doubt. It noted discrepancies in the assessment order and highlighted the absence of an independent inquiry to establish concealment conclusively. The Tribunal ruled that the burden of proof lay on the revenue, which was not adequately discharged. Consequently, the Tribunal exonerated the assessee from the penalty, a decision upheld by the High Court. The High Court, after considering the arguments and the Tribunal's findings, concluded that no question of law necessitating its opinion existed. It noted that the Tribunal's decision was based on a possible view, supported by legal precedents cited during the proceedings. As a result, the petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The judgment underscored the importance of substantiating concealment allegations with concrete evidence to impose penalties under the Income Tax Act.
|
