TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court affirms penalty for concealed income under section 271(1)(c), supports Tribunal decision.</h1> <h3>B. Damodar Vaman Baliga Jewellers Versus Joint Commissioner of Income-tax</h3> B. Damodar Vaman Baliga Jewellers Versus Joint Commissioner of Income-tax - [2013] 353 ITR 206 Issues involved:1. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealed income.2. Justification of penalty for assessment year 1995-96 based on discrepancies found in 1999.3. Exigibility of penalty when revised return was voluntarily filed.4. Tribunal's contradiction from its own findings in cited cases.Analysis:Issue 1: Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealed incomeThe assessee, a jeweler, filed a revised return after discrepancies were found during a survey, admitting to concealed income. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was imposed for deliberate concealment. The appellant argued that satisfaction under section 271(1)(c) was not recorded. However, section 271(1B) deems satisfaction when penalty proceedings are directed in an assessment order. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, considering the admitted discrepancies and deliberate concealment, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.Issue 2: Justification of penalty for assessment year 1995-96 based on discrepancies found in 1999The Tribunal confirmed the penalty for the assessment year 1995-96, even though discrepancies were unearthed in 1999. The assessee admitted to the discrepancies for the relevant assessment year, as evidenced by their responses during the survey. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to uphold the penalty for the correct assessment year was deemed justified based on the admitted discrepancies.Issue 3: Exigibility of penalty when revised return was voluntarily filedThe assessee argued that since a revised return was filed voluntarily, the penalty was not exigible. However, the deliberate concealment of income and discrepancies detected during the survey justified the penalty proceedings. Citing relevant case law, the authorities were deemed correct in imposing the penalty, as the revised return was a result of the survey findings, not voluntary disclosure.Issue 4: Tribunal's contradiction from its own findings in cited casesThe Tribunal's decision to distinguish and not apply cited cases to the present matter was justified. Each case's facts and circumstances differ, and applying precedents incorrectly would be erroneous. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to base its judgment on the specific facts of the case at hand was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.In conclusion, the High Court upheld the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealed income, justified the penalty for the correct assessment year based on admitted discrepancies, deemed the penalty exigible despite a voluntary revised return, and supported the Tribunal's decision to apply the law based on the specific case facts. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the authorities' actions as lawful and appropriate.
TaxTMI 