1972 (1) TMI 40 - HC - Income Tax

Levy Of Penalty u/s 271(1) - When concealment was discovered by Appellate Assistant Commissioner, whether Inspecting Assistant Commissioner can levy penalty in respect of such concealed income - Tribunal is right in the view that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to impose penalty in respect of the concealed income discovered by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to impose penalty based on income enhancement by Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
Correctness of penalty reduction to Rs. 10,000.
Compliance with provisions under section 275 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The case involved a Hindu undivided family engaged in the manufacture and sale of katechu. The Income-tax Officer discovered undisclosed income during the assessment for the year 1963-64 and added Rs. 66,457 to the total income. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner later enhanced the income by Rs. 21,560, which led to penalty proceedings under section 271(1) initiated by the Income-tax Officer. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 60,582, considering both the concealed income found by the Income-tax Officer and the enhancement by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal reduced the penalty to Rs. 10,000, limiting it to the concealed income discovered by the Income-tax Officer.

The primary issue addressed was the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to impose a penalty based on income enhancement by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The court held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to penalize based on income discovered by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The statutory provisions indicated that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had distinct and exclusive penalty jurisdiction based on concealed income found in their respective proceedings.

Regarding the second issue of penalty reduction to Rs. 10,000, the court did not provide a specific answer as it was contingent on the first issue. The third issue pertained to compliance with section 275 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but the court deemed it irrelevant as it was not raised during the appeal before the Tribunal, leading to no jurisdiction for its reference.

In conclusion, the court affirmed the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's lack of jurisdiction in imposing a penalty based on income enhancement by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The second and third questions were returned unanswered due to their dependence on the first issue. Despite no representation from the assessee, the court made no order as to costs and assessed the counsel's fee at Rs. 200.