1975 (3) TMI 23 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the concealment penalty for the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60, and 1960-61.
2. Validity of the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1958-59 and u/s 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61.

Summary:

Issue 1: Legality of the Concealment Penalty
The Tribunal sustained concealment penalties of Rs. 18,000, Rs. 21,000, and Rs. 25,500 for the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60, and 1960-61, respectively. The assessee, an individual running a petrol bunk and bus service, constructed 16 houses and failed to properly account for the investment. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) estimated the cost of construction at Rs. 3,20,000, which was disputed by the assessee. The Tribunal reduced the penalties but upheld the concealment charges. The High Court found that the Tribunal did not properly scrutinize the cost of construction and remanded the case for a fresh determination of the cost, stating that the penalty proceedings are independent and must consider all relevant materials afresh.

Issue 2: Validity of the Levy of Penalty
For the assessment year 1958-59, the original assessment was completed under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, but was reopened and completed u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The penalty was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act, which was upheld based on the Supreme Court decision in Jain Brothers v. Union of India. For the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61, the assessments were made under the 1922 Act, and penalties were levied u/s 28(1)(c) of the same Act. The High Court affirmed the legality of these penalties, referencing section 297(2)(f) and (g) of the 1961 Act, which allows for the imposition of penalties under the respective Acts based on the date of assessment completion.

Conclusion:
The High Court answered the second question affirmatively, validating the penalties under the respective sections of the Income-tax Acts of 1922 and 1961. However, the first question regarding the concealment penalty was returned for a fresh determination of the cost of construction, as the Tribunal failed to properly address the issue. The Tribunal is directed to re-evaluate the cost of construction and reconsider the penalty in light of the new findings. No order as to costs was made.