9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confirmation of penalty under sections 271(1)(c) and 273(2)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1984-85. Detailed Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin addressed the appeals by the assessee against the orders of the CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalties under sections 271(1)(c) and 273(2)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1984-85. The Tribunal noted that the issues raised in these appeals were inter-connected and thus decided them together for convenience. The assessee, a registered firm engaged in the business of purchasing and selling rice, filed a return for the assessment year 1984-85 showing a total income of Rs. 1,17,890. However, discrepancies were found during the examination of the books of accounts, where the assessee had inflated sale receipts and made corresponding adjustments in purchase prices. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) also identified corrections in the account books where purchase prices were inflated and subsequently adjusted. The ITO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and despite the assessee's explanations, levied penalties of Rs. 67,500 under section 271(1)(c) and Rs. 1,600 under section 273(2)(c). The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who upheld the levy of penalties under both sections. The assessee argued that the revised return filed under the Amnesty Scheme should not attract penalties as there was no concealment of income. The Tribunal considered the contentions of both the assessee and the departmental representative. The departmental representative argued that the revised return was filed after the detection of income concealment by the ITO, justifying the penalties under the relevant sections. After hearing the submissions, the Tribunal analyzed whether the levy of penalties under sections 271(1)(c) and 273(2)(c) was sustainable in law. The Tribunal noted that the revised return offering additional income was filed after discussions between the parties and was based on an agreement. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal emphasized that the burden is on the Revenue to prove mens rea in concealing income, and in this case, the additional income was offered by the assessee as agreed with the Revenue, not as concealed income. The Tribunal concluded that the penalties under sections 271(1)(c) and 273(2)(c) were not justified as there was no evidence of concealment of income. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, canceling both penalties. As a result, the Tribunal did not delve into the question of whether the revised returns were filed under the Amnesty Scheme. In summary, the Tribunal's judgment revolved around the confirmation of penalties under sections 271(1)(c) and 273(2)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1984-85. The Tribunal found that the penalties were not justified as there was no evidence of concealment of income, and the revised return offering additional income was based on an agreement between the parties, not an attempt to conceal income.
|
