TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (9) TMI 169
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se falls under the Explanation is section 271(1)(c), only the minimum penalty is leviable u/s 271(1)(iii)? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the main provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the provisions of the Explanation thereto are mutually exclusive so that they cannot operate in the same field? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the addition of Rs.1,26,000/-, the admitted value of the stock which was not accounted for?" 2. The facts of the case, as noticed in the statement of case submitted by the Tribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the assessee being guilty of concealment of income within the meaning of section 271(1) of the Act. The matter was carried by the assessee before the AAC, who did not agree with the Income-tax Officer that the assessee's case was covered by the provisions of section 153(1)(b) of the Act, as, according to him, there was no positive evidence on record to prove that the assessee was guilty of concealment of income within the meaning of section 271(1) (c) of the Act. The Tribunal while adjudicating the penalty appeal, took note of the above observations and finding in order to point out that unless were shown to have been disturbed or vacated, it was difficult to go with the revenue that mere assessment or certain additions which happene....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved by this decision of the AAC. The assessee filed a regular appeal and the revenue a cross objection. The Tribunal, however, did not agree with the assessee's plea. The Tribunal further noted the above facts with a purpose in mind that even before framing the assessment, the Income-tax Officer had recorded his satisfaction of concealment and it is not a case where difference of 20% between returned and assessed income was meant to be utilized for levying penalty. While framing the assessment, the Income-tax Officer recorded his charge of concealment on 28.2.1973 in respect of three additions as follows:- "(i) Unaccounted for woolen yarn and stock pledging with the bank (para 5 of the ITO's order) Rs.2,45,600 (ii) Unaccounted f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bove, the two additions of Rs.65,695/- and Rs.42,230/- were ordered to be deleted one by the Commissioner of Income Tax and the other by the Tribunal. The IAC after observing that the assessee concealed particulars of taxable income in respect of Rs.2,11,000/- held that the facts connected with this part of concealment of income were very heavy and, therefore, it was not a case of minimum penalty of 100% but was a fit case for levy of 150%. The result was that with regard to the addition of Rs.2,11,000/-, penalty was worked out @ 150% and with regard to other two items @ 100% was considered sufficient. This resulted in an imposition of penalty of Rs.4,25,000/- When the assessee came before the Tribunal against the imposition of penalty o....