9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Justification of canceling penalty under section 271(1)(c) for assessment year 1960-61. 2. Consideration of penalty imposed by Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. 3. Applicability of penalty in light of Appellate Tribunal's decision on quantum appeals. 4. Interpretation of High Court's direction to Appellate Tribunal. Analysis: 1. The case involved the question of whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in canceling the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1960-61, given the circumstances surrounding the assessment of the income of a Bombay firm in the hands of the assessee. The Income-tax Officer had included the income of the Bombay firm in the assessment of the assessee based on findings that the Bombay firm was merely a branch of the Madras firm. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner later deleted the income of the Bombay firm from the assessments for the relevant years, a decision affirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal based on earlier orders. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed penalties under section 271(1)(c) for both years, which were subsequently canceled by the Appellate Tribunal due to the deletion of income in the quantum appeals. 2. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed penalties of Rs. 12,000 for the assessment year 1960-61 and Rs. 25,000 for the assessment year 1963-64 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, the Appellate Tribunal, considering its earlier decision on the quantum appeals where the income from the Bombay firm was deleted, held that no penalty could be justified in this case. The Tribunal canceled the penalties imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, leading to a dispute with the Revenue seeking a reference on the matter. 3. The High Court considered the arguments presented by both the Revenue and the assessee's counsels. The Revenue contended that since the matter had been remitted by the High Court to the Appellate Tribunal to rehear the appeal regarding the genuineness of the Bombay firm, the Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty should be set aside. On the other hand, the assessee's counsel argued that the Tribunal was justified in canceling the penalty as the High Court had upheld the finding that the Bombay firm was not a benami of the assessee-firm. The High Court noted that its direction to the Tribunal was to rehear the appeal on the question of the genuineness of the Bombay firm and to record a clear finding on the matter. 4. The High Court concluded that the matter of penalty cancellation should be reconsidered by the Appellate Tribunal in light of its direction regarding the quantum appeal and the genuineness of the Bombay firm. The Tribunal had not provided an independent finding on the propriety of levying the penalty, and its decision to cancel the penalty was based on the deletion of income in the quantum appeal. Therefore, the High Court remitted the matter back to the Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration, following the observations made in a previous case. The High Court did not answer the question of law referred to it, opting to send the matter back to the Tribunal for further review.
|
