1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal overturns penalties for inaccurate income details, directs re-examination under section 271(1)(c) Explanation.</h1> The Tribunal allowed all three appeals, setting aside the penalties imposed on the assessee for inaccurate income particulars and concealment for ... Penalty For Concealment of Income Issues:Challenging penalties imposed on the assessee for inaccurate income particulars and concealment for assessment years 1974-75 to 1976-77. Delay in filing appeals beyond the limitation period. Interpretation of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) before and after its amendment. Restoration of the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision.Analysis:The department challenged penalties imposed on the assessee for inaccurate income particulars and concealment for assessment years 1974-75 to 1976-77. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalties, stating that revised returns were not filed voluntarily by the assessee, but to resolve complaints with the department. He also noted that penalties cannot be levied on estimated income and that income from a cold drinks shop was debatable. The department appealed to the Tribunal against this decision, arguing that the penalties were justified. The Tribunal considered the delay in filing the appeals, which was beyond the limitation period. The department explained the delay due to a strike, and the Tribunal accepted the explanation, condoning the delay.The main legal issue revolved around the interpretation of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) before and after its amendment. The department argued that the Explanation before amendment applied to the penalty proceedings for 1974-75 and 1975-76, while the Explanation after amendment applied to 1976-77. The Tribunal analyzed various decisions cited by both parties, ultimately agreeing with the department that the Explanation before and after amendment should apply to the respective assessment years. This interpretation was based on precedents from different High Courts and the Supreme Court.Despite initially considering deciding the appeals on merits, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision. The Tribunal believed that the Commissioner (Appeals) should re-examine the case in light of the Explanation before and after its amendment. The parties were allowed to raise all points except the application of the Explanation before and after its amendment. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and directed a fresh decision. Ultimately, all three appeals were allowed, leading to a restoration of the matter for re-hearing before the Commissioner (Appeals).
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
