TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the same assessment year. The question relates to the leviability of penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act. The amount of penalty in each case is different. The following question of law has been sought to be referred in ITC No. 61 of 1991 (in the case of Shri Jaswant Rai for the assessment year 1984-85): Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in cancelling the penalty imposed under section 271(l)(c) amounting to ₹ 26,334 ? 2. The amount of penalty in ITC No. 65 of 1991 (in the case of Raunaq Ram Om Parkash) is ₹ 1,28,296 and in ITC No. 66 of 1991 (in the case of Miri Ram Prem Chand) is ₹ 59,448. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arlier years : 7,000 Total : 41,550 4. The assessment was made on the total income of ₹ 1,06,230. In addition to ₹ 41,550 brought to tax on account of undisclosed and unaccounted income, one-third share income from Miri Ram Prem Chand (Rs. 35,297) and 15 per cent share income from Raunaq Ram Om Parkash (Rs. 29,890) were, thus, assessed. 5. In the case of the partnership, Raunaq Ram Om Parkash, return was filed for the assessment year 1984-85 showing the total income of the firm at ₹ 49,240. The accounting year of the firm ended on 31 -3-1984. Search and seizure operations had also taken place in the business premises of this firm on 28-7-1984 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so done. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee-firm agreed for the following additions : Rs On account of excess stock found at the time of survey 90,000 (ii) On account of profit at the rate of 12.5 per cent on undisclosed sales of ₹ 2,41,613 as recorded in a note-book 30,202 (iii) Investment made in sales 15,000 1,35,202 Less credit given for the amount of profit of ₹ 30,202 covered in the excess stock 30,202 Total addition : 1,05,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pposed the plea of the department on the ground that the assessees had agreed to the additions on an assurance and undertaking that no penalty proceedings shall be initiated. Though there was no agreement in writing but certain additions were agreed to be made in this year on that assurance and undertaking only. As per the narrations made in respect of the additions made to the income in the assessment order, it is evident that the entire income by way of additions did not relate to the assessment year 1984-85 but only part of the income related to this year. This fact itself made out a clear case that the assessee had agreed to the additions on an assurance and understanding to the effect that no penalty shall be levied. It has been conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erence and, looking to the facts and circumstances of that case, it was held that it was desirable to call for a statement of the case. The facts and circumstances, on the basis of which penalty had been levied, have not been discussed and, therefore, it cannot be said, on the basis of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, that in every case of levy of penalty a question of law would naturally arise. 12. Where there is an agreement between the assessee and the income- tax authorities, it would not be appropriate that an order, based on an agreement, should give rise to grievances and could be agitated in appeal. This High Court in Banta Singh Kartar Singh v. C/r[1980] 125 ITR 239 (Punj. Har.), had an occasion to examine a case w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
