1978 (4) TMI 48 - HC - Income Tax

Disclosure Petition, Income From Other Sources, Levy Of Penalty, Revised Returns, Voluntary Disclosure Of Income

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of penal provisions under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on a disclosure petition pending with the Commissioner of Income-tax.

Analysis:
The case involved a reference from the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-II, regarding the applicability of penal provisions under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a partnership firm, had filed a petition under section 271(4A) admitting undisclosed income. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) added amounts to the income of the assessee based on this disclosure and initiated penalty proceedings referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (IAC). The IAC imposed penalties for various assessment years. The assessee appealed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, arguing that penal provisions were not attracted as the concealment was not detected independently. The Tribunal found that the disclosure petition had limited purpose and no evidentiary value, penalties were based solely on the disclosure, and revised returns were not filed after the petition. Consequently, the Tribunal held that penal provisions were not attracted.

In the reference applications, the Tribunal's findings were summarized, stating that penalties were quashed as assessments were based on revised returns and disclosure petition without independent findings of concealment. The Commissioner questioned whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that section 271(1)(c) was not attracted. The High Court noted that the Tribunal's decision was not based on the pendency of the petition under section 271(4A) with the CIT. The Court held that the Tribunal's finding on the lack of evidentiary value of the disclosure was accepted and unchallenged. Therefore, the conclusion that penal provisions were not attracted was upheld. The Court did not delve into the issue of whether the pendency of section 271(4A) proceedings excluded section 271(1)(c) operation, as the Tribunal's decision was found to be correct based on the facts. The Court answered the question in favor of the assessee, affirming the Tribunal's decision. Judge Banerji concurred with the judgment.