9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring for the assessee fairly conceded that the point was neither raised, nor considered by the Appellate Tribunal. Hence, there is no need to raise the question to answer the same. - - - - - Dated:- 23-2-2006 - Judge(s) : P. D. DINAKARAN., P. P. S. JANARTHANA RAJA. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by P.D. Dinakaran J.- As against the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated November 8, 2002 in I.T.A. No. 698/Mds/2002 imposing penalty of Rs. 6,67,045 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the unsuccessful assessee has preferred the above appeal raising the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant was guilty of deliberate mis-sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e explanation offered by the assessee as not satisfactory, finding that the assessee raised the sales bill on March 31, 1998, and also filed sales tax return admitting the same as turnover for the month of March, 1998, and paid sales tax for the same. The assessee also paid the Central excise duty applicable and claimed the same as expenditure in the profit and loss account based on the delivery challan prepared by the assessee on March 31,1998, supported by lorry receipt dated March 31, 1998. Hence, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 6,67,045 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Against the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) contending that the Assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact that though the invoice was issued on March 31, 1998, the sale was completed only in June, 1998 when the purchaser received the goods as well as the fact that the assessee paid the income-tax for the said receipt voluntarily in the assessment year 1999-2000. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant was guilty of deliberate mis-statement of facts and concealment of facts, thereby attracting penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act in the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case? It is a settled law that the expression, "concealment" as found in section 271 would mean the existence of an intent deliberately to prevent relevant facts from becoming known. The Explanation to secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nch of this court reported in India Cine Agencies v. Deputy CIT [2005] 275 ITR 430 wherein it is held as follows: "The battle of wits between the assessee and their advisors on the one hand and the Revenue on the other is bound to result in different view points being projected and, as long as there is nothing to show that the assessee concealed the income with a dishonest intent or had furnished inaccurate particulars either deliberately or as a result of gross negligence which was not capable of being regarded as an innocent act, penalty is not to be ordinarily levied. We cannot agree with the submission made for the Revenue that intent has no place at all in section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The word 'conceal' as defined in the Concise Oxf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
