9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 813X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, the facts found by the Tribunal being inconsistent with the facts found by the Assessing Officer ? 3. Whether, on the facts found by the Assessing Officer and concealment being always in the original return, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in interfering with the order of the Assessing Officer ?" 2. The assessment year in question is 1996-97. It is not in dispute, return of income came to be filed on February 6, 1998, admitting the net taxable income of Rs. 10,76,460 by the respondent-assessee. What happened thereafter is of much relevance. In the declaration made in the return filed on February 6, 1998, at the time of filing the return, the assessee categorically mentioned that in the light of the judgment of the apex court in CIT v. N. Ramanatha Reddiar (HUF) [1996] 222 ITR 765 (SC) no assessment can be made in the status of HUF, since the HUF status had been abolished in the State of Kerala with effect from December, 1975, therefore, income of the HUF in the hands of the assessee is also included in the return of income filed on February 6, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be taken by the assessee prudently, there was justification in the orders of the first appellate authority cancelling the imposition of penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the Revenue, inter alia, contending that as the penalty contemplated under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act is a civil penalty, the question of establishment of either mensrea or wilful negligence on the part of the assessee to conceal the income or intentionally furnishing inaccurate details of income is no more required. Mere concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars would be sufficient to saddle the assessee with the liability of penalty under section 271 of the Act. He also places reliance on two decisions in support of his contentions, i.e., Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC) and CIT v. K. Mahim [1984] 149 ITR 737 (Ker). 6. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee took us through the orders of the first appellate authority as well as Tribunal and contends that in the absence of withholding of any information with the intention of evading payment of tax especially in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, in the present case, declaration given by the assessee in the return of income dated February 6, 1998, that the return of income includes the income from the HUF also was factually incorrect. The said fact itself would invite liability of penalty and nothing else need to be proved by the Revenue. In the case of K. Mahim (supra), their Lordships faced with a situation where an assessee should be exonerated from penalty on the basis of the original return filed by him in the absence of fraudulent intention at the time of filing the original return. While dealing with the said issue, their Lordships had beautifully analysed the purpose of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and also made clear how the social philosophy cannot work in the matter of taxation law. Courts of law are not concerned with the social philosophy behind a heavy dose of taxation or about the social attitudes in the matter. The laws enacted by Parliament, including the penal provisions thereof, have to be interpreted on their plain terms and given effect to, regardless of other consideration. If stringent measures such as section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are enacted, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Lachmandas B. Aswani. On October 27, 1998, a letter has been issued, directing the asses see to furnish clarifications about the omissions mentioned above. In response to this letter, the assessee submitted another return on December 3, 1998, disclosing an enhanced income of Rs. 15,31,817. In the income computation statement, the assessee has admitted the additional income of Rs. 2,60,079 from the erstwhile HUF M/s. Devi Enterprises and another amount of Rs. 1,95,278, towards his half share in another HUF M/s. Lachmandas V. Aswani. Revised statement were also submitted." 9. When the matter came up for scrutiny, it was noticed that the declaration made by the assessee while filing the return of income was incorrect and made a false statement that he has disclosed the HUF income as personal income. Factually only a small portion of the HUF income was declared leaving out a major portion of the income of the HUF as noticed from the income computation statement. Paragraph 2 stated above has to be read along with the contents of letter dated February 23, 1998. At the time of filing the return of income, there is a categorical statement that in the light of the judgment of the apex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
