2020 (9) TMI 92 - HC - Income Tax

Recalling of the earlier decision - Same substantial question of law in two appeals of the same assessee - Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - rejection of claim of sundry creditors which were offered for taxation in the course of the assessment proceedings - concealment of Income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of Income - HELD THAT - Substantial question of law, which was entertained in this appeal is the first substantial question of law in 2009 (4) TMI 154 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and it is a verbatim repetition. Since the Hon'ble Division Bench considered the entire matter and dismissed the appeal holding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, we are not inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant - assessee. In fact, the learned counsel, who appeared in both the matters, is the same person and it is not clear as to why it was not brought to our notice by the learned counsel, when we heard 2019 (7) TMI 606 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . Be that as it may, in the light of the above discussions, the judgment in 2019 (7) TMI 606 - MADRAS HIGH COURT has to be recalled.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1951 against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 2003-2004. The substantial question of law revolves around the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the rejection of claim of sundry creditors offered for taxation, and the impact of a previous dismissal of another appeal on the present case.

Analysis:

1. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):
The primary issue in this case pertains to the correctness of sustaining the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal upheld the penalty despite the appellant's rebuttal of the presumption of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The appellant contended that the dismissal of a previous appeal should not impact the present appeal. However, the Division Bench dismissed the previous appeal based on the strict liability imposed by Section 271(1)(c) as elucidated by the Supreme Court in various judgments. The court emphasized that wilful concealment is not a prerequisite for civil liability under this provision, and any concealment automatically attracts the penalty.

2. Impact of Previous Dismissal on Present Appeal:
The appellant argued that the dismissal of a previous appeal should not influence the current case. However, the court found that the substantial question of law raised in the present appeal was a verbatim repetition of the question considered and dismissed in the prior appeal. The court noted that the same counsel represented the appellant in both cases, indicating a lack of clarity as to why this was not brought to the court's attention earlier. Consequently, the court decided to recall the judgment in the present appeal and dismissed it as unnecessary, citing the overlap in issues and lack of merit in determining any new question of law.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the intricacies of the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the strict liability imposed on the assessee for any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The court's decision to recall the judgment in the present appeal due to the overlap with a previously dismissed appeal underscores the importance of clarity and consistency in legal proceedings.