TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00% - Decided against the assessee - I.T.A. No.24 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 2-8-2011 - Mr. Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya, Mr. Justice Sambuddha Chakrabarti, JJ. For the Appellant: Ms. Anupa Banerjee, Mr. Siddhartha Das, Mr. C.S. Das. For the Respondent: Mr. M. P. Agarwal. Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.: This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is at the instance of an assessee and is directed against an order dated August 21, 2009, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, B Bench, Kolkata, in Income-tax Appeal bearing ITA No.433/Kol/2009 for the Assessment Year 2001-2002. Being dissatisfied, the appellant has come up with the present appeal. The facts leading to filing of the present appeal may be summed up thus: a) The appellant is an individual and is assessed to tax under the Act and the present appeal arises out of the appellant s assessment and initiation of penalty proceedings under the Act for the Assessment Year 2001-2002, for which the relevant previous year was the financial year ending on March 31, 2001. b) During the financial year 2000-2001, the appellant had changed his job. Up to November 30, 2000 the appellant was em ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by order dated November 22, 2007 assessed the appellant s income accordingly as stated in the aforesaid return and also launched penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. h) Subsequently, by an order dated May 30, 2008, the Assessing Officer held that since there was a difference in tax of Rs.1,98,582/- between the original return and return dated May 7, 2007 filed in course of reassessment proceedings, tax on income to the extent of the said amount was concealed warranting invocation of penalty @ 100% and consequently, the appellant was served with a demand notice under Section 156 of the Act. i) Aggrieved by the said order of penalty, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the said appellant authority by its order dated December 16, 2008 upheld the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. j) Being dissatisfied, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the said Tribunal by the order impugned herein upheld the aforesaid order of imposition of penalty. k) Against the aforesaid order dated August 21, 2009 passed by the Tribunal, the appellant has come with the present app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person (a) [omitted;] (b) has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) of Section 142 or sub-section (2) of Section 143 or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2-A) of Section 142; or (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty, (i) [omitted;] (ii) in the cases referred to in clause (b), in addition to tax, if any, payable] by him, a sum of ten thousand rupees for each such failure; (iii) in the cases referred to in clause (c), in addition to tax, if any, payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed three times, the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of the concealment of particulars of his income or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. Thus, on a plain reading of the aforesaid Section it is clear that for application of Section 271(1) (c) of the Act, all that is necessary is that either there must be concealment of income or inaccurate particulars of such income. In the case befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material to the computation of his income were not disclosed by him. It was then held that the explanation must be preceded by a finding as to how and in what manner, the assessee had furnished the particulars of his income. The Court ultimately went on to hold that the element of mens rea was essential. It was only on the point of mens rea that the judgment in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and Anr. (AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 1280: 2007 AIR SCW 4323) was upset. In Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors (AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 668 : 2008 AIR SCW 8038) (cited supra), after quoting from Section 271 extensively and also considering Section 271(1)(c), the Court came to the conclusion that since Section 271(1)(c) indicated the element of strict liability on the assessee for the concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing Return, there was no necessity of mens rea. The Court went on to hold that the objective behind enactment of Section 271(1)(c) read with Explanations indicated with the said Section was for providing remedy for loss of revenue and such a penalty was a civil liability and, therefore, wilful concealment is not an essential in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
