9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by P. P. S. Janarthana Raja J.— This appeal is filed under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench "D", Chennai, in I. T. A. No. 807/Mds/98 dated August 17, 2005, raising the following substantial questions of law : "1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that penalty under section 271(1)(c)is not leviable on the assessee on the ground that the assessee did not have mens rea to conceal income and to avoid tax ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere was a mistake which occurred due to clerical errors. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 13,26,551 under section 271(1)of the Act which worked out to 100 per cent. of the tax sought to be avoided. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" in short). The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the lower authorities. Hence, the present appeal by the Revenue. 3. Learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sted to furnish the basis of working for this advance, relating to this branch. The assessee also furnished the details. The basis of working is given as under : Date Total Advances (Rs.) April 30, 1993 May 31, 1993 June 30, 1993 July 31, 1993 September 30, 1993 October 31, 1993 November 30, 1993 December 31, 1993 January 31, 1994 February 28, 1994 March 31, 1994 76,27,784 72,60,205 70,67,858 68,71,584 70,57,524 70,25,124 70,23,623 71,46,057 71,25,659 72,68,455 71,59,587 Total 8,54,20,251 Average 71,18,354 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Income-tax [2007] 291 ITR 519, the apex court considered the scope of levying of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein it was held as follows (pages 544, 546 and 550) : "The legal history of section 271(1)(c) of the Act traced from the 1922 Act prima facie shows that the Explanations were applicable to both the parts. However, each case must be considered on its own facts. The role of the Explanation having regard to the principle of statutory interpretation must be borne in mind before interpreting the aforementioned provisions. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 categorically states that the penalty would be leviable if the asses-see conceals the particulars of his income or furnishes inaccurate parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... losed all the facts which was material to the computation of his income." "'Concealment of income' and 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars' are different. Both concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars refer to deliberate act on the part of the assessee. A mere omission or negligence would not constitute a deliberate act of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi . Although it may not be very accurate or apt but suppressio veri would amount to concealment, suggestio falsi would amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars." 6. In the present case, the Tribunal applied the principles enunciated in the Supreme Court judgment cited supra, and accepted the explanation offered by the assessee. It was found that the mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
