TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 528
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his order was preferred by the assessee on 27.9.2007, which, after providing hearing to counsel for the applicant-assessee was dismissed by this Court on 12.10.2007. The assessee had challenged order dated 6.11.2006 by way of Special Leave to Appeal in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Accepting the plea of the assessee that the impugned order of this Court had been delivered ex-parte but without expressing its opinion on merits of the case, liberty was granted to move this Court to put-forth its case. Thus, by setting aside the impugned ex-parte order, SLP was dismissed. After receipt of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 27.3.2009, order dated 6.11.2006 was passed in CM Nos.2986, 2989, 2992, 2995 and 2998 of 2009, Income Tax References were restored to their original number and were ordered to be listed before an appropriate Bench. It is in this backdrop that these references are before us for answering the question referred to this Court by the Tribunal. It may be noticed further that in addition to challenging the order of penalty inter-alia under Section 271(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) before the appellate authority, the assessee on his ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee having been recommended by the authorities below, plea of the assessee was not accepted; neither waiver was granted by the Central Board of Direct Taxes nor by CIT (Central), Ludhiana to whom application had been moved under Section 273(4) of the Act. Contention of the assessee before this Court is that disclosure had been made by it voluntarily and there was no detection by the revenue. It is claimed that such disclosure should not have automatically resulted into initiation of proceedings under Section 148 of the Act, resulting in revised assessment and consequent imposition of penalty inter-alia under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Plea of the revenue on the contrary is that exercise of power under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is statutory in nature and income of the assessee having escaped assessment due to concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars in its returns by the assessee, such power had rightly been exercised by the Assessing Officer. Recommendations of the Tribunal were challenged. When rival contentions of the parties are evaluated, it becomes clear that it was not an innocuous omission on the part of the assessee but was a deliberate act of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o way that the appellant or its partners could escape the additional tax liability and other consequences of not disclosing substantial income for those years in the returns of income originally filed and on the basis of which assessments already stood completed. The additional income disclosed by the appellant in the returns of income filed on 4.1.88 cannot therefore, be said to be a disclosure made voluntarily or bona fide." Thus, on these facts and circumstances projected by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), there remains no doubt that it was not only a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars in earlier assessments but is also a case of concealment of income which thus had escaped assessment. Sequelly, even when strict compliance in terms of Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad v. Reliance Petroproducts Private Limited, (2010)11 SCC 762 sought by the assessee is made of the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is clearly a case of concealment of income and by no means can be said to be a disclosure made voluntarily or bona fide. Considerations for adjudication of an application/petition under Section 273 of the Act for waiver of penalty and interest are tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s already been noticed, such petition was preferred by the assessee but was dismissed on 27.1.1993 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana when he did not find any case of genuine hardship. Giving excrepts of assets of the firm as also of the partners as on 31.3.1992, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana had come to a conclusion that total wealth of the firm and partners as on 31.3.1992 was Rs.42,96,455 (Annexure P-16). Following observation made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana in order dated 27.1.1993 may be noticed:- "As regards the petition of the assessee under sub-section (4) of Section 273A, merely because the assessee has to pay taxes of Rs.28,56,089/- against the income surrendered at Rs.29 lakhs, it does not become case of genuine hardship as stipulated under sub section (4). Similarly, the facts that the assessee devoted time, incurred expenses and suffered hazards of travelling etc. do not make a case of genuine hardship. As regards the good faith of the assessee and alleged assurance from the CIT, Haryana, Rohtak, the same have already been dealt with above. Genuine hardship means the real hardness of fate or circumsta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferred upon the Commissioner under Section 273-A of the Act] will indicate that it is a power coupled with a duty to do justice and the Commissioner is under statutory obligation to exercise the power in favour of an assessee which has fulfilled all the conditions of the provisions. In deciding such a matter, therefore, he cannot take into account factors or reasons which are invalid or extraneous to the said provisions. The principal condition for grant of relief under the said provision is that the assessee should have voluntarily and in good faith made full disclosure of his income prior to the detection of the same and such disclosure could be made even otherwise than in the course of a return by submitting a petition to the Commissioner. In the present case, we have already noticed that the assessee had made the disclosure prior to the coming into force of the voluntary disclosure scheme and long before the Department could initiate any action in respect of the concealed income. The levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) by itself will not be a circumstance to take him out of the purview of Section 271(4-A) of the Act." In the said authority, it was a case of voluntary discl....