Penalty for inaccurate agricultural income particulars upheld; delayed initiation and revision did not invalidate the proceedings.

Penalty was attracted where the assessee filed a return with highly inflated cultivation expenses and only a sketchy disclosure, while the correct figures were supplied only after the Department sought particulars; the conduct supported an inference of deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars, so the challenge on merits failed. Section 22 did not require the satisfaction for penalty to be recorded only in the assessment order or for initiation to follow immediately after assessment, so the delay in issuing notice and order did not invalidate the proceedings. The revisional authority could restore the penalty under section 35 because the cancellation of a justifiable penalty order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee had concealed the particulars of agricultural income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars so as to attract penalty under section 22(1)(d) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957; (ii) Whether the penalty proceedings were invalid because the penalty notice and order were issued long after the assessment and not as part of the assessment order; (iii) Whether the revisional authority was justified in restoring the penalty under section 35 of the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee had concealed the particulars of agricultural income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars so as to attract penalty under section 22(1)(d) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957.

Analysis: The return originally filed disclosed a highly inflated cultivation expenditure and only a sketchy statement, though the assessee had the profit and loss account in its possession. The correct expenditure figure was furnished only after the Department called for particulars. The assessee did not file a revised return. On these facts, the conduct was held to be more than mere inadvertence and sufficient to infer deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

Conclusion: The requirement for levy of penalty was satisfied and the assessee's challenge on merits failed, in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty proceedings were invalid because the penalty notice and order were issued long after the assessment and not as part of the assessment order.

Analysis: Section 22 of the Act was held not to require that satisfaction for penalty must be recorded only in the assessment order or that initiation must immediately follow assessment. The provision empowered the specified authority to impose penalty when satisfied about concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and the time gap by itself did not vitiate the proceedings.

Conclusion: The delayed initiation of penalty proceedings did not invalidate the penalty, in favour of Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether the revisional authority was justified in restoring the penalty under section 35 of the Act.

Analysis: The powers under section 22 to levy penalty and under section 35 to revise an erroneous appellate order were held to be independent. An order setting aside a justifiable penalty was treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, and the revisional authority could restore the penalty even if it did not itself freshly impose penalty under section 22.

Conclusion: The revisional order restoring the penalty was upheld, in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The court found no legal infirmity in the penalty or in the revisional restoration of that penalty, and the revision petition was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Under section 22(1)(d) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, penalty is attracted where the facts justify an inference of deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and the provision does not require that satisfaction or initiation of penalty proceedings must necessarily form part of the assessment order or occur immediately upon assessment; a revisional authority may restore a penalty order if the appellate order cancelling it is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue.

---