Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1997 (11) TMI 98

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssued notices proposing to impose penalty under section 20 of the Act against the assessee for the years 1986-87 to 1989-90 alleging that he had wilfully concealed income from an extent of 6.02 acres of agricultural lands in his possession for the aforesaid years. The officer pointed out that though the assessee had returned income from 6.02 acres of land for the assessment year 1990-91, he had not disclosed the said extent and income therefrom in his returns relating to the previous years, that is to say, 1986-87 to 1989-90. The said proposal was objected to by the assessee and thus pleaded that there was no concealment of income since he had voluntarily submitted the returns. However, after considering the objections, the assessing author .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to deviate from the above finding entered by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer. The levy of penalty is authorised under section 20 of the Act. The relevant provision in the present context is contained in sub-section (1) of section 20 which deals with imposition of penalty for concealment of income. The said provision is as follows : "20. Penalty for concealment of income.--(1) If the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, the Assistant Commissioner, the Commissioner or the Appellate Tribunal is satisfied that any person--. . . (c) has concealed the particulars of his agricultural income or has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amoun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d the particulars of his agricultural income in respect of 6.02 acres of land in his possession for the aforesaid years. When such an admission is made it is for the assessee to establish that there was no dishonest intention on his part in not furnishing the particulars of his income. That burden has not been discharged by the assessee. As pointed out earlier, the levy of penalty is authorised under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Act in two specified circumstances, that is to say, when the assessee has concealed the particulars of his agricultural income or has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This is only alternative and not conjunctive. When the assessee admits that he has not furnished th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... en reduced by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as disclosed from annexure "D". Annexure "D" is the common order passed by him on the appeals relating to the above years arising out of the orders passed under section 35 of the Act. As per annexure "D" the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, for the reasons recorded therein, directed the officer to modify the assessments for the years 1986-87 to 1989-90. In this context, counsel for the assessee submitted that so far no modified assessment orders have been passed by the officer pursuant to annexure-D and in case the assessments are modified, there would be reduction in the quantum of tax payable by the assessee. Therefore, counsel pleads that there should be a corresponding reduction in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mes necessary in any assessment or penalty, the High Court may direct the agricultural income-tax authority to amend the assessment or penalty order accordingly and on such amendment being made, any amount overpaid by any person shall be refunded to him, or the further amount of tax or penalty due from him shall be collected in accordance with the provisions of this Act, as the case may be." Since the levy of penalty at the rate of 50 per cent. of the tax is upheld by us, the quantum of penalty has to be determined in view of annexure-D order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. We, therefore, direct the officer to amend the order imposing penalty to the extent necessary in the light of the reduction in the quantum of tax on the conce .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates