High Court: Income-tax Officer's Satisfaction Key in Penalty Proceedings

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Uttar Pradesh Versus Bankey Lal Hira Lal.

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Uttar Pradesh Versus Bankey Lal Hira Lal. - [1973] 92 ITR 587 Issues:
1. Commencement of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) within the meaning of section 275 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court of ALLAHABAD involved a question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the validity of the commencement of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case revolved around the imposition of a penalty on the assessee for concealment of income represented by cash credit entries in the accounts of four creditors during the relevant assessment year. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 28,070, which was challenged by the assessee on the grounds that the penalty proceedings were not validly commenced during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal accepted this plea, leading to the reference to the High Court.

The crux of the issue lay in the interpretation of section 271(1) of the Income-tax Act, which requires the Income-tax Officer to be satisfied during the course of proceedings that the assessee has concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. The High Court emphasized that the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer must occur before the assessment proceedings are concluded, as highlighted in the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. S. V. Angidi Chettiar. The court clarified that while no formal order recording satisfaction is necessary, it is essential for the validity of penalty proceedings that there is evidence showing the Income-tax Officer's satisfaction before commencing the penalty proceedings.

Furthermore, the High Court addressed the contention that the notice under section 274(1) should be issued during the assessment proceedings based on section 275, which prescribes the limitation period for making a penalty order. The court rejected this argument, stating that section 275 primarily deals with the limitation period and does not dictate the commencement of penalty proceedings. It was held that the Income-tax Officer only needs to be satisfied during the assessment proceedings that a penalty proceeding should be initiated, without the requirement of issuing a notice under section 274.

The judgment also referred to precedents such as Durga Timber Works v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Navayuga Traders Gunnies Firm v. Commissioner of Income-tax, and Padgilway Brothers v. Commissioner of Income-tax to support the view that the initiation of penalty proceedings does not necessarily have to occur before the completion of assessment proceedings. The High Court ultimately concluded that the penalty proceedings in the present case were validly commenced under section 271(1)(c), and since section 275 does not address the commencement of such proceedings, it was not applicable in this context. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the Commissioner of Income-tax, awarding costs and counsel fees accordingly.