1999 (9) TMI 15 - HC - Income Tax

Conditional acceptance of enhanced assessed income to avoid penalty-no concealment proved under s. 271(1)(c), penalty set aside

Penalty under s. 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment was in issue. The HC held that where the assessed income was accepted only as a cooperative, ... Levy of penalty u/s 271(1) - Concealment Of Income - Onus to prove - Explanation to section 271(1)(c) - HELD THAT:- It appears to be obvious that the income assessed by the Income-tax Officer was agreed to by the appellant as a measure of co-operation and with a view to escaping penal consequences, I find from the assessment order that no basis is given for estimating the income at Rs. 35,000. It, therefore, appears that the agreement was conditional, In such circumstances, penalty cannot be imposed. The finding that the assessee had agreed to a higher assessment on the condition that no penalty would be imposed, is a finding of fact. Similarly, the finding that no actual concealment was established is also a finding of fact and, therefore, the assessee would be held to have discharged the onus under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We, therefore, answer all the questions in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Issues involved: The judgment involves the interpretation of penalty provisions u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the discharge of onus by the assessee, the legality of upholding the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's finding of no concealment, and the confirmation of the cancellation of penalty imposed on the assessee by the Tribunal.Interpretation of Penalty Provisions u/s 271(1)(c): The Appellate Tribunal referred questions of law arising from its order to the High Court, including whether the assessee could be held to have discharged the onus under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal had deleted the penalty imposed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner based on the reasoning that the income assessed was agreed upon by the appellant to cooperate and avoid penal consequences. The Tribunal found no concealment in the assessment order and concluded that penalty could not be imposed. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's findings, holding that the assessee had indeed discharged the onus under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Act.Finding of No Concealment: The Tribunal also considered whether it was legally correct to uphold the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's finding of no concealment on the part of the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the facts did not indicate any concealment, as the income was estimated without any evidence of concealment. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's conclusion, and the High Court concurred with this decision, finding that no actual concealment was established.Confirmation of Penalty Cancellation: The Tribunal confirmed the cancellation of the penalty imposed on the assessee by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Revenue appealed this decision, with the counsel for the Revenue supporting the Income-tax Officer's order, while the assessee relied on the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's reasoning and conclusion, leading to the cancellation of the penalty. The High Court upheld this decision, answering all questions in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.This judgment highlights the importance of cooperation in tax assessments, the burden of proof on the assessee under penalty provisions, and the significance of factual findings in determining the imposition of penalties for concealment of income.