9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to the present petition in short are: The facts: That on December 29, 1987, when the petitioner was leaving for Singapore from Calcutta airport, her person and baggage was searched by the customs officials at Calcutta airport and certain enquiries were made with respect to the fixed deposit receipts which she was carrying with her. Neither was any action taken by the customs authorities nor was any intimation passed on by them to the Income-tax Department. On the contrary, the petitioner on her own filed her returns on April 12, 1988, declaring her income for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1988-89 in the sum of Rs. 17,380 and Rs. 18,440, respectively. On April 27,1988, she further filed her returns for the assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 and declared her income in the sum of Rs. 50,000, Rs. 55,000, Rs. 60,000 and Rs. 9,910, respectively. On the basis of the aforesaid returns filed, she was assessed and the Assessing Officer levied interest and penalty with respect to the assessment years 1982-83 and 1984-85 details of which are not necessary for disposal of this petition except for the fact that penalties were levied on the assessee under section 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l be deemed to have made full and true disclosure of his income or all the particulars relating thereto. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed and set aside. Per contra: Mr. R.V. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue contends that the returns were filed after the search was taken by the customs officials at Calcutta airport and, therefore, the disclosure made cannot be said to be voluntary and in good faith. He, therefore, submits that a cumulative effect of the findings recorded by the Commissioner should mean that the returns filed by the assessee were not voluntary. He thus tried to support the order and findings recorded therein. Statutory provisions: In order to appreciate the rival submissions it is necessary to have a look at the text of unamended sections 271(1)(c) and 273A(1) and the Explanation appended thereto. 271.(1) If the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person-. . . (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in good faith made full and true disclosure of his income and has paid the tax on the income so disclosed, and also has, in all the cases referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c), co-operated in any enquiry relating to the assessment of his income and has either paid or made satisfactory arrangements for the payment of any tax or interest payable in consequence of an order passed under this Act in respect of the relevant assessment year. Explanation 1. - For the purposes of this sub-section, a person shall be deemed to have made full and true disclosure of his income or of the particulars relating thereto in any case where the excess of income assessed over the income returned is of such a nature as not to attract the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),- (a) if in a case the penalty imposed or imposable under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 271 or the minimum penalty imposable under section 273 for the relevant assessment year, or, where such disclosure relates to more than one assessment year, the aggregate of the penalty imposed or imposable under the said clause or of the minimum p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relating thereto in any case where the excess of income assessed over the income returned is of such a nature as not to attract the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271. Consideration: Having heard the rival parties and having examined the statutory provisions and sweep thereof, let us turn to consider the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. If one turns to the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), wherein categorical findings have been recorded that the Assessing Officer was not justified in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the sum of Rs. 12,460 in the assessment year 1982-83 and Rs. 19,676 for the assessment year 1983-84. If the said findings are tested on the touchstone of the text of section 271(1)(c) it would be clear that the said section gets attracted only if the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. If the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) recorded a categorical finding that the assessee has not concealed the particulars of her income and did not furnish inaccurate particulars of such income, then the Explanatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
