1981 (11) TMI 46 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Penalty levied under s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act of 1961

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved references made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the deletion of a penalty levied under s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act of 1961. The assessee, an advocate being assessed as an individual, was constructing a house alongside professional income. The assessing officer estimated the construction cost higher than the assessee's estimate, treating the difference as unexplained investment under s. 69 of the Act. A penalty proceeding under s. 271(1)(c) was initiated, and penalties were imposed without granting an adjournment for the assessee to produce evidence. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to explain and provide evidence. The crucial question was whether the assessee had discharged the onus under the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) effectively.

The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority, emphasizing the need for a fresh disposal considering the legal aspects. The Appellate Authority confirmed the penalties upon rehearing. The assessee contended that the entries in the order sheet did not reflect the correct situation and provided an affidavit stating that notice of the hearing was received after the date mentioned in the order sheet. The Tribunal considered the evidence, including the postal cover and the affidavit, and concluded that there was no deliberate attempt by the assessee to misrepresent facts. The discrepancy in the construction estimate was deemed marginal, and no contumacy was found. The Tribunal held that the imposition of penalties was unwarranted as it was primarily a case of estimation and not deliberate misrepresentation.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that there was no contumacy or deliberate attempt by the assessee to mislead the assessing officer. The Court agreed that the facts were appropriately disclosed, and the discrepancy arose due to the officer's judgment. It was concluded that the assessee should not be penalized for conduct that did not involve deliberate misrepresentation. The Court declined to answer the references, stating that the Tribunal had made factual conclusions, and no legal question arose. The parties were directed to bear their own costs, and both judges concurred with the decision.