1979 (12) TMI 34 - HC - Income Tax

Court rules negligence /= concealment under Income-tax Act

The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, finding that the Tribunal's conclusions regarding intention to conceal and/or gross negligence were not ... Contract Business, Penalty Issues Involved:1. Whether the Tribunal's finding of intention to conceal and/or gross negligence on the part of the assessee is based on any material.2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was leviable.Summary:Issue 1: Intention to Conceal and/or Gross NegligenceThe Tribunal found that the assessee, a contractor, did not maintain books of account and filed multiple revised returns for the assessment year 1969-70, increasing the declared income each time. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) due to the discrepancies between the original and revised returns. The assessee argued that the revisions were made voluntarily upon receiving additional payment certificates and were not due to any detection by the department. The Tribunal, however, concluded that the assessee was aware of the total receipts and exhibited gross negligence by not disclosing the full income initially. The High Court held that the Tribunal's finding of intention to conceal and/or gross negligence was not based on any material. The Court emphasized that negligence, however gross, cannot be equated with concealment of income and that criminal intention must be evident from the assessee's actions or conduct.Issue 2: Levy of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c)The Tribunal upheld the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1969-70, despite allowing appeals for the preceding years on the ground of limitation. The High Court noted that the assessee revised the returns voluntarily before the assessment was completed and without any detection of concealment by the ITO. The Court referred to s. 139(5) of the I.T. Act, which permits the filing of revised returns before the assessment is made. The Court concluded that the revision of returns was bona fide and not a camouflage to cover deliberate omissions. The High Court held that the Tribunal was not right in law in holding that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was leviable, as there was no material to support the finding of concealment or gross negligence.Conclusion:Both questions were answered in the negative and in favor of the assessee. The High Court ruled that the Tribunal's findings were not based on any material and that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not justified. The assessee was entitled to costs, with a hearing fee of Rs. 250.