9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for non-disclosure of income from self-occupied property in the returns for the relevant years. Detailed Analysis: 1. Background and Facts: The appeals involved a common dispute regarding the imposition of penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on an HUF for not disclosing income from self-occupied property in the returns for the years 1974-75 to 1977-78. The assessee, engaged in a cloth business, had varied income in previous years and had also become a partner in another firm during the relevant period. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initiated proceedings and imposed penalties for non-disclosure. 2. Arguments and Submissions: The assessee contended that the non-disclosure was unintentional and due to oversight, as it had voluntarily disclosed the income from self-occupied property in a later year. The counsel argued that since the assessee had no taxable income in prior years, the omission was inadvertent. The department, however, supported the penalties citing failure to disclose income as per the returns filed. 3. Tribunal's Decision: After considering the submissions and evidence, the Tribunal opined that the imposition of penalties under section 271(1)(c) was not justified in this case. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided all relevant information to the tax authorities, and the omission was due to inadvertence and not an attempt to conceal income. The Tribunal highlighted that the assessee had voluntarily disclosed the income in a subsequent return, indicating no mala fide intent. Therefore, the Tribunal canceled the penalties imposed by the ITO. 4. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals, ruling in favor of the assessee and canceling the penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The decision was based on the finding that the non-disclosure was not deliberate but a genuine oversight, and the assessee had cooperated with the authorities by disclosing the income in a later return.
|
