1999 (9) TMI 115 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalty for concealment of income under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty for concealment of income imposed under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. The appellant sought full relief from the penalty of Rs. 63,490 imposed by the AO for the assessment year 1988-89.

2. The arguments presented by the learned representatives for the appellant and the Departmental Representative were considered. The appellant made an application to the CIT to waive the entire penalty under s. 273A(4) of the IT Act, 1961, which was partly allowed by the CIT, reducing the penalty to Rs. 23,490. The appellant contended that the remaining penalty should be canceled based on legal provisions.

3. The appellant's representative argued for the cancellation of the remaining penalty amount by relying on s. 271(1)(c) Expln. 5(a) and cited relevant case laws to support the contention. The appellant emphasized that the penalty levied could not be sustained based on the specific legal provisions and interpretations of the law.

4. The Departmental Representative opposed the appellant's claim, asserting that the appellant cannot simultaneously seek waiver of penalty under s. 273A(4) and appeal for full cancellation before the Tribunal. It was argued that the appellant's failure to disclose the pending appeal before the CIT affected the decision on penalty waiver.

5. The Departmental Representative cited legal precedents, including decisions from Calcutta High Court and Gujarat High Court, to support the argument that the appellant's appeal for full cancellation of penalty after partial waiver by the CIT was not competent. The Department's position was that the balance of the penalty should be upheld based on the facts and legal provisions.

6. After thorough examination of the facts, circumstances, and legal arguments presented, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not entitled to cancel the remaining penalty amount. The Tribunal upheld the balance of the penalty, considering the legal provisions, case laws, and the failure of the appellant to disclose all relevant facts to the authorities. The appeal was dismissed based on these findings.