1976 (3) TMI 68 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Concealment of income and imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c).

Analysis:
The case involved the assessment of an assessee who initially filed a return showing property income but later voluntarily filed a revised return including interest income as well. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) imposed a penalty under section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income. However, the Appellate Authority Commissioner (AAC) noted that the assessee, an elderly lady, had disclosed the interest income voluntarily after consulting a new tax consultant. The AAC found that the failure to disclose the interest income was due to ignorance and not a deliberate omission. Consequently, the penalty was canceled by the AAC.

Upon appeal by the ITO, the Appellate Tribunal considered the circumstances of the case. They observed that the assessee, despite being of advanced age, had a history of filing returns for property income. The tribunal noted that the interest income was not received in cash by the assessee and that she promptly disclosed it upon advice from her tax consultant. The tribunal found that the assessee's actions, including mentioning the General Index Register Number of the Rajkot file in the return filed at Bombay, demonstrated her good faith. It was concluded that there was no intention to conceal income, and the penalty cancellation by the AAC was upheld. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the lack of deliberate concealment and the assessee's genuine efforts to rectify the omission.