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>Court reinstates penalty for income concealment under Income-tax Act section 271(1)(c) emphasizing objective evidence</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus R. Kesavan Nair.</h3> Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus R. Kesavan Nair. - [2006] 287 ITR 276, 205 CTR 10, 156 TAXMANN 172 Issues:1. Justification of Tribunal's interference with penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.Analysis:1. The case involved an appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax against the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order regarding the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal had interfered with the penalty proceedings based on the decision in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 705.2. The assessee initially declared income from liquor business as Rs. 40,000 on an estimate basis but later agreed to adopt Rs. 3,45,643 as income after a search was conducted in the premises. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) despite the assessee's request for no penalty. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the penalty, leading the assessee to appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.3. The Tribunal, considering precedents like CIT v. Adamklum [1997] 223 ITR 264 and Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 705, held that penalty initiation lacked reasonable grounds. The Revenue appealed the Tribunal's decision, arguing that the Tribunal misinterpreted section 271(1)(c) and referred to relevant case laws to support their stance.4. The assessee's counsel argued that the Tribunal's decision should stand, emphasizing the acceptance of the proposal to estimate income from liquor business and the request to waive the penalty. Case laws like CIT v. Sarda Rice and Oil Mills [1979] 117 ITR 917 were cited to support the assessee's position.5. The High Court analyzed the case in light of legal precedents such as CIT v. K. P. Madhusudanan [2000] 246 ITR 218 and affirmed by the apex court. The court found that the Tribunal erred in its decision, as the facts indicated the assessee's conscious concealment of income, leading to the restoration of the Assistant Commissioner's penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The court highlighted that penalty imposition does not rely on the assessee's consent and upheld the penalty based on the evidence of income concealment.6. The High Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was erroneous, as the facts supported the imposition of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. The court set aside the Tribunal's order and restored the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer, emphasizing the legal principle that penalty proceedings are independent of the assessee's agreement or concession, focusing on the objective evidence of income concealment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
