1976 (12) TMI 34 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of section 297(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Consideration of additional question by the Tribunal.

Summary:

1. Imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The primary issue was whether penalty was imposable on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1959-60. The assessee, a registered firm dealing in motor spare parts, had agreed to the addition of Rs. 90,000 as its business income after the Income-tax Officer discovered hundi loans, which were considered concealed income. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner levied a penalty of Rs. 11,200, which was the minimum penalty (20% of the tax avoided). The Tribunal upheld the penalty, rejecting the assessee's contentions that there was an agreement with the Income-tax Officer to not impose a penalty and that there was no definite material to show concealment. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, stating that the assessee's consent to the addition prevented further investigation and amounted to an admission of concealed income.

2. Validity of section 297(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The assessee argued that section 297(2) was ultra vires of the legislature, but the Tribunal held it to be a valid provision and intra vires of the powers of the legislature. The High Court did not find any error in this conclusion.

3. Consideration of additional question by the Tribunal:
The assessee sought a direction for the Tribunal to refer an additional question regarding the evidence supporting the finding of concealed income. The High Court dismissed this notice of motion, stating that the question was an aspect of the argument already submitted and considered.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the penalty was justified as the assessee had agreed to the addition of Rs. 90,000 as its income, which amounted to an admission of concealment. The Tribunal's refusal to refer the additional question was upheld, and the validity of section 297(2) was affirmed. The question referred was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the revenue, with costs awarded to the Commissioner.