2003 (4) TMI 9 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - The case of the assessee that he has shown in the return, gross receipt of Rs. 93,000 and the net receipt of Rs. 43,802 in the final revised return. - Even if we give benefit to him, the fact is that he has disclosed these particular figures. On those figures no case of concealment of income is made out, but that can be accepted until the amount he has shown, i.e., Rs. 93,802. But there is no explanation for the concealment of income to the tune of Rs. 11,198, i.e., a difference of gross income he has shown in the return, i.e., Rs. 93,802, and the final figure of income from profession, i.e., Rs. 1,05,000 taken by the Tribunal. - In the result, we answer the question that the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 85,000 imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, but considering the admitted facts there was a concealment of income of Rs. 11,198, the penalty is thus reduced to the figure of Rs. 11,198.

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of cancellation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The case involved an application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the Tribunal referred a question regarding the cancellation of a penalty of Rs. 85,000 imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The late Dr. L.M. Simlot, a medical practitioner and government employee, had shown income from salary and private practice in his returns for the assessment year 1966-67. The Income-tax Officer found that the assessee did not maintain regular books of account for his private practice and had issued certificates to postal department employees, with gross receipts of Rs. 1,09,489. The Tribunal reduced this figure to Rs. 1,05,000. Penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c) and a penalty of Rs. 85,000 was imposed, which was later cancelled by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not withheld primary facts to conceal income, as he had disclosed gross realisable fees and actual realisations in his returns. The Tribunal concluded that there was no attempt to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars. However, the Department argued that the confirmation of Rs. 1,08,489 receipts from various departments indicated concealment. The assessee contended that he only received Rs. 43,802 from government employees, supporting the Tribunal's decision.

The details of income in original and revised returns were presented, showing discrepancies in figures. The Tribunal noted that while there was no concealment until Rs. 93,802, the unexplained difference of Rs. 11,198 between gross income shown and the final figure warranted penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal justified cancelling the penalty of Rs. 85,000 but reduced it to Rs. 11,198 due to the admitted concealment of income.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty was deemed justified, but a concealment of Rs. 11,198 warranted a reduced penalty amount. The judgment balanced the disclosure of income figures with the unexplained discrepancies, ultimately reducing the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) based on the facts presented in the case.