TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (10) TMI 484
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions is common though the three petitions relate to three different assessees but for the same assessment year. The question relates to the leviability of penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act. The amount of penalty in each case is different. The following question of law has been sought to be referred in ITC No. 61 of 1991 (in the case of Shri Jaswant Rai for the assessment year 1984-85): "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in cancelling the penalty imposed under section 271(l)(c) amounting to Rs. 26,334 ?" 2. The amount of penalty in ITC No. 65 of 1991 (in the case of Raunaq Ram Om Parkash) is Rs. 1,28,296 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....total income of Rs. 1,06,230. In addition to Rs. 41,550 brought to tax on account of undisclosed and unaccounted income, one-third share income from Miri Ram Prem Chand (Rs. 35,297) and 15 per cent share income from Raunaq Ram Om Parkash (Rs. 29,890) were, thus, assessed. 5. In the case of the partnership, Raunaq Ram Om Parkash, return was filed for the assessment year 1984-85 showing the total income of the firm at Rs. 49,240. The accounting year of the firm ended on 31 -3-1984. Search and seizure operations had also taken place in the business premises of this firm on 28-7-1984 and certain papers were seized. Replies were filed by the assessee, explaining those papers. However, the assessee-firm agreed, during the course of the assessm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....15,000 1,35,202 Less credit given for the amount of profit of Rs. 30,202 covered in the excess stock 30,202 Total addition : 1,05,000 7. Penalty proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer, after finalising the assessments, upon the three assessees, as aforesaid, on the ground that they had concealed particulars of income and had agreed to the additions on that account. The assessees filed replies in the penalty proceedings, explaining that they had agreed to certain additions in order to earn peace of mind and to avoid litigation and on an undertaking that no penalty would be imposed. It was also stated in the reply that some income related to the earlier years but the assessee had agreed to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t a clear case that the assessee had agreed to the additions on an assurance and understanding to the effect that no penalty shall be levied. It has been contended that the finding given by the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal is a finding of fact and, in this light, no question of law arose from the controversy. 10. Shri R.P. Sawhney, the learned senior counsel for the department, has put forward the proposition that, where an assessee himself, during the course of assessment, filed a revised return and owned a disputed amount to be his income, the onus on the department stood discharged and, in that situation, penalty could be levied. In Mahavir Metal Works v. CIT [1973] 92 ITR 513, the assessee had owned a disputed amount to be hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vances and could be agitated in appeal. This High Court in Banta Singh Kartar Singh v. C/r[1980] 125 ITR 239 (Punj. & Har.), had an occasion to examine a case where the assessee had agreed to the levy of penalty of Rs. 32,188 but he subsequently challenged it on the ground that the penalty levied was not the minimum leviable according to law. Since there was an agreement, it was held that it could not be challenged in appeal. The learned counsel for the assessees has, on the basis of the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, put forward a proposition that in the case of the present assessees too there was an agreement and, is such a situation, nothing should be done beyond and outside that agreement. The very nature of the agreement and the circ....