9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. 3. Applicability of Section 139(5) regarding the revised return. 4. Tribunal's decision on the concealment of income. 5. Quantum of penalty. Detailed Analysis: 1. Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The matter pertains to penalty proceedings for the assessment year 1963-64. The assessee initially filed a return on March 16, 1964, disclosing a total income of Rs. 27,566. A second return was filed on February 7, 1968, showing an income of Rs. 75,044. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment on December 31, 1968, determining a total income of Rs. 3,15,201. Penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. 2. Concealment of Income and Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars: The Income-tax Officer noted several discrepancies, including the absence of evidence for export losses, the sale of import licenses without clear price disclosure, and the presence of bogus hundi loans. The assessee's revised return did not justify the understatement of income, leading to the conclusion that the assessee was guilty of concealment. The Tribunal, however, held that the revised return was filed before any investigation, thus negating concealment based on the precedent set in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramdas Pharmacy [1970] 77 ITR 276 (Mad). 3. Applicability of Section 139(5) Regarding the Revised Return: Section 139(5) allows for a revised return if any omission or wrong statement is discovered before the assessment is made. The court emphasized that "omission" implies an unintentional act and "wrong statement" does not include false statements known to be false at the time of filing. The court concluded that the revised return filed by the assessee did not fall within the scope of Section 139(5) as it was not a case of unintentional omission or wrong statement but deliberate concealment. 4. Tribunal's Decision on the Concealment of Income: The Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty was based on the finding that the revised return was filed before any investigation into the hundi transactions. However, the court found this reasoning flawed, noting that the assessee had concealed income in both the original and revised returns. The court held that the filing of a revised return does not absolve the assessee from liability if the original return contained deliberate concealment. 5. Quantum of Penalty: The court concluded that the assessee could not escape liability for penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal did not address the quantum of the penalty, and the court remanded the case to the Tribunal to determine the appropriate penalty amount. The court emphasized that the filing of a revised return does not mitigate the penalty if the original return was fraudulent. Conclusion: The court answered the question in the negative, holding that the Tribunal was incorrect in concluding that there was no concealment of income. The case was remanded to the Tribunal for determining the quantum of penalty. The court appreciated the assistance of the amicus curiae in this matter.
|
