1975 (9) TMI 26 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Justification of penalty calculation based on revised return after discovery of extra income in duplicate sale bills.

Detailed Analysis:
The High Court of Orissa was approached by the revenue under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to address the question of whether the Tribunal was correct in calculating the penalty based on the revised return filed after the Income-tax Officer discovered additional income in duplicate sale bills. The assessee, a distributor of cloth and yarn, initially reported a total income of Rs. 80,738 for the assessment year 1960-61 but later revised it to Rs. 2,33,128 upon discrepancies being noted in the sale bills. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer included a further sum of Rs. 4,98,400 as income from other sources, leading to a penalty of Rs. 3,45,387 imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

During the appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee argued that since the revised return disclosed all sources of income, there was no concealment or inaccurate particulars warranting a penalty. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the assessee's action of revising the return only after being confronted with the discovered income indicated an intention to conceal part of the income, justifying the penalty. The Tribunal acknowledged the higher income in the revised return but noted an addition of Rs. 54,377, indicating incomplete disclosure.

Referring to a similar case in the Gujarat High Court, the Orissa High Court emphasized the importance of voluntary revised returns before detection of suppression to establish bona fide mistake. In this case, since the revised return was made after the Income-tax Officer discovered the extra income, the penalty should be calculated on the total assessed figure minus the originally reported amount, rather than solely based on the revised return.

In conclusion, the High Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in basing the penalty calculation solely on the revised return given the circumstances of the case. The Court did not award any costs for the proceedings.

Judge N. K. Das concurred with the judgment.