9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assessment of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act based on best judgment assessment and rejection of books by the Income-tax Officer. Detailed Analysis: The judgment involves a case where the assessee, a registered firm in the confectionery business, had discrepancies in its books and trading accounts for the assessment year 1964-65. The Income-tax Officer rejected the books and estimated the total income of the assessee at Rs. 62,490, higher than the returned income of Rs. 40,648. Subsequently, a penalty of Rs. 5,742 was imposed under section 271(1)(c) by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Appellate Tribunal overturned this penalty, citing that penalties cannot be levied solely based on estimating sales and applying gross profit rates due to unverifiable books. The Commissioner of Income-tax raised questions regarding the concealment of income and the correctness of the penalty imposition. The Tribunal consolidated these questions into one, seeking the court's opinion on whether the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars under section 271(1)(c). The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner justified the penalty based on the rejection of books and best judgment assessment, indicating that the returned income was incorrect. However, the Tribunal did not address the applicability of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) or whether the assessee acted fraudulently or negligently. The High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's reasoning, stating that penalties can be imposed even in best judgment assessments under section 145 of the Income-tax Act. The court highlighted that the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) allows penalty imposition when the returned income is less than the assessed income. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in revoking the penalty solely based on estimation of sales and gross profit rates without considering the justification for concealing income. The court reframed the questions and held that the penalty was justifiable under section 271(1)(c) and ruled in favor of the department on the issue of penalty imposition. In conclusion, the High Court answered the second question in the negative, supporting the penalty imposition, while leaving the first question unanswered due to insufficient material in the Tribunal's order. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in the matter.
|
