9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted a return for a sum of Rs. 1,01,805 and later he submitted a revised return for Rs. 1,09,406. However, the assessing authority computed the income at Rs. 2,08,018 and initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since the maximum penalty imposable has exceeded the limit prescribed under the Act, the Income-tax Officer made a reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 274(2) of the Act. But by the time the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner took up the matter for consideration, the appeal against the assessment of the quantum filed by the assessee came up before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the addition to the tune of Rs. 25,000 in addition to R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hall not be less than, but which shall not exceed twice, the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of the concealment of particulars of his income or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income: Provided that, if in a case falling under clause (c), the amount of income (as determined by the Income-tax Officer on assessment) in respect of which the particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished exceeds a sum of twenty-five thousand rupees, the Income-tax Officer shall not issue any direction for payment by way of penalty without the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In this case, since the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer exceeds rupees twenty-five ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is good evidence. Before penalty can be imposed the entirety of circumstances must reasonably point to the conclusion that the disputed amount represented income and that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars." It was further held : (vide headnote) " In the absence of cogent material evidence, apart from the falsity of the respondent's explanation, from which it could be inferred that the respondent had concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars in respect of the source and that the disputed amount was a revenue receipt, the penalty could not be imposed." The same view was reiterated in CIT v. Khoday ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income or furnished inaccurate particulars, Before imposition of penalty, the officer has to take the totality of the facts and circumstances into consideration and positive and conclusive evidence must be on record to arrive at a finding that the assessee had deliberately concealed the particulars or had wantonly furnished inaccurate particulars. In this case, from the record it is clear that during quantum proceedings, the sum of Rs. 25,000 was added on preponderance of probability of earning the income and accordingly an addition was made of Rs. 25,000 to the income already returned by the assessee. But during the penalty proceedings, except to the extent of the admission of Rs. 3,000, there is no positive evidence placed on record by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
