TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 575
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee challenges the order dated 25.09.2018 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal'), Cochin Bench, in I.T.A. No.320/Coch/2017 to the extent the order is against the assessee. The issues canvassed in the appeal relate to the return filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2010- 11. The substantial questions of law raised in the appeal are mixed questions of fact and law arising under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). 4. The circumstances necessary for disposing of the appeal are in a limited sphere and are stated thus: The subject matter of the appeal relates to the penalty proceedings for the omission or commission of assessee in either disclosing the incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the tax sought to be evaded by the assessee amounted to Rs. 10,25,850/- and 200% penalty on the tax sought to be evaded was levied. On appeal, filed by the assessee, before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Commissioner set aside the order of penalty in Annexure-C dated 09.03.2017. In the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal in I.T.A. No.320/Coch/2017, the Tribunal in-part set aside the order of the CIT (Appeals) and directed a minimum penalty of 100% under Section 271(1)(c) and prescribed the penalty payable by the assessee as Rs. 10,25,850/-. Hence, the appeal at the instance of the assessee. 5. The following substantial questions of law are framed for decision. " i. In the facts and circumstances ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. (1) If the Assessing Officer or the [Commissioner (Appeals)] or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person- (a) .... (b) .... (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, or (d) ..... he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty,-- (i) ...... (ii) ..... (iii) in the cases referred to in clause (c) or clause (d), in addition to tax, if any, payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed three times, the amount of tax so....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income resulting in evasion of tax. Then, the question is: what is the penalty payable - whether on total tax assessed or on the tax evaded by the assessee. The Tribunal treated the penalty amount as Rs. 10,25,850/-. The plain meaning of the section leads to the conclusion that the criteria for determination of penalty is the tax sought to be evaded but not the total tax payable by the assessee. As already noticed from the computation statement in Annexure-A the total tax payable by the assessee is Rs. 10,25,850/-. The difference of tax is lesser than that which was found to have been evaded by the assessee. Therefore, the penalty shall be quantified or qualified by such figures. For th....