9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in law in not taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances while adjudicating upon the aspect of 'mens rea' in penal proceedings under reference and, therefore, ultimate finding confirming the penalty is not sustainable? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was further justified in relying upon and applying the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Smt. Kochammu Amma [1980] 125 ITR 624 and whether the order of the Tribunal is reasonable?" The facts giving rise to the present reference, in a nutshell, are as under: The assessee is a partnership firm. For the assessment year 1968-69, the assessee had shown in the return that a sum of Rs.8,936 was paid to Premraj Haris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals). The appeal was allowed and the amount of penalty was directed to be deleted. Being aggrieved by the order passed in appeal, the Revenue had approached the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal had ultimately allowed the appeal by restoring the original order passed on reassessment by the Assessing Officer. In the above set of circumstances, this reference has been made at the instance of the assessee and the court has to opine whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming penalty of Rs.8,936 imposed by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have heard learned counsel. We have to examine whether the assessee had concealed particulars of its income and whether the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in presuming that the assessee-firm would know about various accounts maintained by its depositors with the assessee and in the circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the assessee-firm did not know that Premraj Harisingh was one of the partners of the assessee-firm who had also deposited money with the assessee. Thus, after appreciating the facts of the case and looking to the returns which the assessee had filed in the previous years, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was an attempt on the part of the assessee to conceal the particulars of its income and, therefore, the Tribunal had upheld the order of the Assessing Officer whereby penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act had been imposed upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) had been imposed. The Tribunal, in the process of deciding the appeal, had relied upon the observations made in the judgment delivered in the case of Kochammu Amma [1980] 125 ITR 624 (SC). In the case on hand, the assessee had concealed the particulars of its income by not revealing the fact that interest which was in fact paid to its partner was shown as interest paid to a depositor and thereby an effort was made to avoid disallowance under the provisions of section 40(b) of the Act. On the principle discussed in the said judgment, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of reassessment passed by the Assessing Officer. In the circumstances, we answer al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
