9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assessment of penalty for the variance between returned and assessed income; Interpretation of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; Justification of canceling the penalty imposed on the assessee. Analysis: The case involved an assessment year where the assessee initially filed a return showing an income of Rs. 21,628, later revised to Rs. 32,244. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) assessed the total income at Rs. 59,513, which was reduced to Rs. 47,753 on appeal, primarily due to disallowed losses. The ITO, finding the returned income less than 80% of the assessed income, referred the case for penalty consideration. The Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,000 due to a significant difference of Rs. 27,269 between the assessed and returned income. The Tribunal, on appeal, found the assessee guilty of gross neglect in maintaining accounts for the business income from Indian Oil products but noted that the difference in returned and assessed income from this source was less than 20%, exempting the assessee from penalty for this specific item. Regarding other income sources, the Tribunal did not find evidence of gross neglect, thus canceling the penalty under cl. (c) and the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c). The High Court analyzed the provisions of section 271, emphasizing that an assessee's liability to penalty arises when concealing or providing inaccurate income particulars. The total income, not individual sources, is the assessable unit. The Court clarified that the difference between returned and assessed income must be based on total income, not individual sources, as per the Explanation to cl. (c). Disagreeing with the Tribunal's interpretation, the Court held that the total income difference exceeding 20% makes the assessee liable for penalty, regardless of individual source variations. The Court emphasized that the assessee's negligence in declaring correct income from individual sources may impact the penalty amount but does not absolve liability. Consequently, the Court answered both questions against the assessee, upholding the department's position. As no representation was made on behalf of the assessee, no costs were awarded.
|
