9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on facts and circumstances found by the Appellate Tribunal. Analysis: The High Court of ALLAHABAD was presented with a question regarding the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case involved an assessee-firm that filed a return for the assessment year 1965-66 showing an income of Rs. 42,887, while the Income-tax Officer assessed the total income at Rs. 82,798. Penalty proceedings were initiated concerning unexplained cash credit and investment of Rs. 26,274. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner issued a show-cause notice under section 274 of the Act, which led to a written reply by the assessee. However, the Assistant Commissioner found discrepancies in the cash book entries and concluded that the assessee attempted to evade taxes by claiming a separate business unit. The Appellate Tribunal overturned these findings, stating that the explanation provided by the assessee was not false, and the attempt to create a separate unit was a legal device to avoid taxes. The Tribunal highlighted the absence of any attempt to conceal facts, making it challenging to hold the assessee guilty under section 271(1)(c). During the proceedings, the learned counsel for the partners argued that the Appellate Tribunal misinterpreted the Explanation added to section 271(1)(c) and failed to establish that the assessee was not guilty of fraud or gross misconduct. However, the High Court noted that the question referred to it was limited to the facts and circumstances found by the Appellate Tribunal, as per the decision in Karnani Properties Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. Therefore, the High Court concluded that it could not reassess the findings made by the Appellate Tribunal. Consequently, the High Court answered the reference in favor of the assessee, stating that the department's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee was awarded costs amounting to Rs. 200.
|
