1974 (4) TMI 18 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Justification of the Appellate Tribunal in reducing the quantum of penalty for concealment of income.
2. Justification of the Appellate Tribunal in holding that the assessee had a reasonable cause for late filing of return.
3. Justification of the Appellate Tribunal in holding that the delay in filing the return was only one month instead of four months.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of the Appellate Tribunal in Reducing the Quantum of Penalty for Concealment of Income:

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala, sought the court's opinion on whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in reducing the quantum of penalty despite being satisfied that the offence of concealment was established without any doubt. The facts of the cases involved two partners of M/s. Shahzada Hosiery Mills, who had initially concealed their income but later submitted revised returns. The Income-tax Officer imposed penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which were later reduced by the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision was based on the mitigating circumstance that the concealment was not entirely deliberate but involved a transfer of profit from one year to another. The Tribunal concluded that although there was a conscious attempt at concealment, the penalties imposed were excessive and thus reduced them from 50% to 30%.

2. Justification of the Appellate Tribunal in Holding that the Assessee had a Reasonable Cause for Late Filing of Return:

In Income-tax Case No. 28 of 1972, the Commissioner sought the court's opinion on whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the late filing of the return in March 1968. The Tribunal found that the first return, although unsigned, was accepted by the department, which proceeded to make a provisional assessment. The Tribunal observed that the assessee was under the reasonable belief that the return filed was valid and complete, influenced by the conduct of the Income-tax Officer. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay, as the initial return was accepted and acted upon by the department, leading the assessee to believe it was proper.

3. Justification of the Appellate Tribunal in Holding that the Delay in Filing the Return was Only One Month Instead of Four Months:

The Commissioner also questioned whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the delay in filing the return was only one month, from February 1964, instead of four months, from October 1, 1963, to February 18, 1964. The Tribunal determined that the delay should be computed up to the date of the filing of the first return in February 1964. The Tribunal reasoned that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not furnishing the return thereafter, as the Income-tax Officer had taken cognizance of the initial return and based the provisional assessment on it. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the delay was only one month, and the penalty under section 271(1)(a) was exigible for that period.

Conclusion:

The High Court concluded that the questions regarding the justification of the Appellate Tribunal in reducing the quantum of penalty and the delay in filing the return do arise for the court's opinion. However, the question of whether the assessee had a reasonable cause for the late filing of the return was deemed a pure question of fact and not a question of law. Therefore, the Tribunal was directed to refer the questions related to the quantum of penalty and the delay in filing the return for the court's opinion, but not the question regarding the reasonable cause for the late filing of the return.