1973 (8) TMI 14 - HC - Income Tax

Finding of concealment is set aside in appeal and there is no finding that income returned was less than eighty per cent. of assessed income - Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty of Rs. 2,800 is justified ? held that penalty could not be levied merely on the concession of the assessee unless the facts warrant levy of such penalty - Question answered in the negative

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of penalty levy under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1964-65.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the levy of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, referred the question of law to the High Court of Karnataka, seeking clarification on the justification of the penalty imposed. The initial penalty imposed was Rs. 2,800, but both parties agreed that the correct amount should be Rs. 1,984. The dispute arose from the assessing authority's additions to the assessee's income, which led to a total income determination of Rs. 59,273, significantly higher than the income initially reported by the assessee. The penalty proceedings were initiated based on alleged concealment of income, and the case was referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Dharwar Range.

The assessee, a registered firm of provision merchants, provided explanations for the additions made by the assessing authority, claiming that the additions were based on estimations and did not amount to concealment. The authorised representative of the assessee conceded to the minimum penalty during the proceedings, leading to a penalty imposition of Rs. 2,800 by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The assessee appealed this decision before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, where the penalty was reduced to Rs. 1,984 based on reductions made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the additions.

The High Court noted that the penalty imposition was primarily based on the assessing authority's additions, particularly the addition made under the head "jaggery," which was outside the books of account. The Court emphasized that penalty proceedings must establish conscious concealment of income by the assessee, supported by cogent evidence. The Court cited the Supreme Court's ruling that penalty proceedings are penal in nature and require evidence of deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. In this case, the authorities failed to establish conscious concealment by the assessee.

The High Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was solely based on the alleged concession made by the assessee's representative, without proper justification for the penalty imposition. The Court held that penalties cannot be imposed solely based on concessions without factual justification. Therefore, the High Court answered the question referred in the negative, ruling against the department and allowing costs to the assessee.

In summary, the High Court's judgment focused on the lack of concrete evidence supporting the penalty imposition for alleged concealment of income. The Court emphasized the need for factual substantiation of deliberate concealment by the assessee before levying penalties under the Income-tax Act, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee based on the lack of such evidence.