Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2014 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 510 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURTPenalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) – Intention to hide the income or not – Held that:- The Tribunal rightly made reference to the decision in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax [1987 (7) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court] - It is not as if the Commissioner and Tribunal proceeded on the assumption that there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the respondent to conceal the two items - The removal of the word deliberate did not give a free hand to the AO or exposing the assessee to a defence less situation - The principle that runs cutting across any systems of law is that before person is visited with punishment or penalty, the wrongful act on his part must be established - If not a deliberate intention, at least, intention, as such, must be proved to be existing - The intention of this nature may not be equated to the concept of mens rea - At the same time, the minimum contrast with an instance of mere omission, or failure must be made- Otherwise, every inadvertent omission, or a bona fide understanding of a particular provision, which is not accepted by the Income Tax Officer may expose the assessee to penalty - If that time is pursued, Act may turn out to be the one of the collection of penalties than the income tax. Relying upon Mak Data P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2013 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT] -once an item of income was found to have been concealed, the mere fact that the assessee has voluntarily disclosed it thereafter, does not absolve him from being proceeded u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act - it is important to understand the purport of very word concealment - That can occur, only when the person is in full knowledge of the state of affairs and even while being under obligation to make it known to others, and in particular the authorities under the Act fails or refuses to do so - It is then, and only then, that he can be said to have concealed and once the factum of concealment is proved, his attempt to voluntarily disclose it does not save him – as such there was no ingredients of concealment – thus, the order of the Tribunal is upheld – Decided against revenue.
|