1982 (6) TMI 36 - HC - Income Tax

Court Upholds Tribunal Decision on Income Tax Penalty (1)(c)

The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the reference application regarding the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ... Penalty, Question Of Law, Reference Issues:- Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961- Refusal of the Tribunal to refer the question of law to the High CourtAnalysis:The judgment pertains to a petition under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax against a firm in Amritsar regarding the deletion of a penalty of Rs. 28,000 under section 271(1)(c). The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the reference application, stating that the assessee was not liable for the penalty after reviewing all the material on record. The Tribunal's decision was based on factual findings and various legal precedents. The petitioner sought a direction to refer the question of law to the High Court, challenging the Tribunal's decision.During the assessment proceedings for the year 1969-70, it was discovered that the firm had deposited goods with the Central Warehousing Corporation. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) added Rs. 45,000 as concealed income and initiated penalty proceedings. The Appellate Authority Commission (AAC) reduced the undisclosed investment to Rs. 28,000. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision on the undisclosed income but canceled the penalty, citing lack of evidence to establish conscious concealment. The Department's reference application was rejected by the Tribunal on the grounds of factual findings and lack of conclusive evidence of concealment.The petitioner argued that the firm had concealed income by not disclosing the storage of goods, invoking section 271(1)(c) and the Explanation added by the Finance Act, 1964. However, the court held that the Explanation applies only if the returned income is less than 80% of the assessed income, which was not established in this case. The petitioner also contended that there was sufficient incriminating material on record, but the Tribunal found no conclusive evidence of conscious concealment, emphasizing it as a factual determination.The court referenced legal precedents to support the principle that the imposition of a penalty is a factual matter based on evidence. It was emphasized that the Tribunal's decision was valid, as it provided adequate reasons for its findings. Ultimately, the court upheld the Tribunal's refusal to refer the question of law to the High Court, dismissing the petition without costs.