9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 employed with KPMG Consulting Pvt Ltd. and had earned gross salary of Rs.5,47,358/-. Thereafter, the appellant from December 1, 2000, joined Price Water ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t mistake, he did not include the gross income of Rs. 5,47,358/- earned from the former employer though the tax on the said income was covered by TDS certificate. The said Appellate Authority, by an order dated February 5, 2007 directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the income of the appellant in accordance with such income enhanced by the aforesaid appellate authority and to allow the rebate and TDS after due verification. g) The Assessing Officer, subsequently, by his order dated November 22, 2007 recomputed the income of the appellant and initiated reassessment proceeding. The appellant in reassessment notice stated his correct income and filed return on May 7, 2007 disclosing total income of Rs.8,35,230/- and the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal was justified in upholding the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer @ 100% on a mere bona fide and/or inadvertent mistake committed by the appellant and its finding to this extent is arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse?" In the case before us, there is no dispute that during the relevant assessment year, the appellant worked for 8 months before the earlier employer and 4 months before the new employer and totally suppressed the income from salary availed of from the earlier employer but only disclosed the salary of 4 months received from the new employer. The only explanation given is that due to oversight he forgot to disclose the salary received from the earlier employer including the T.D.S deducted by the earlier emplo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise. In Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and Anr. [2007(6) SCC 329] : (AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 1280 : 2007 AIR SCW 4323), this Court explained the terms "concealment of income" and "furnishing inaccurate particulars". The Court went on to hold therein that in order to attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), mens rea was necessary, as according to the Court, the word "inaccurate" signified a deliberate act or omission on behalf of the assessee. It went on to hold that Clause (iii) of Section 271(1) provided for a discretionary jurisdiction upon the Assessing Authority, inasmuch as the amount of penalty could not be less than the amount of tax sought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ingredient for attracting civil liability as was the case in the matter of prosecution under Section 276-C of the Act. The basic reason why decision in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and Anr. (cited supra) was overruled by this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors (cited supra), was that according to this Court the effect and difference between Section 271(1)(c) and Section 276-C of the Act was lost sight of in case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
