TMI Blog1973 (7) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eferences. In fact the office has wrongly registered four references, when actually there are only two, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred to as " the Tribunal ") to this court, one arising out of the case of Bakshi Mohd. Yusuf and the other arising out of the case of Bakshi Mohd. Shafi. We propose to deal with both the references by one common judgment. Bakshi Mohd. Yusuf was a working partner in the firm, Messrs. Fairdeal Motors, Indore. While submitting his return for the assessment year 1962-63, the assessee showed a salary of Rs. 500, which he was receiving from the firm but did not show the share of profits received by him, although the particulars of the income from his share in the said firm were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee filed an application before the Tribunal for making a reference to this court. The Tribunal has accordingly made a reference to this court and has referred the following questions for our opinion : " (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, of the case the assessee had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of his income when he did not show the share income from M/s. Fairdeal Motors, Indore, in the return so as to attract the provision of section 271(1)(c) ? (ii) Whether the procedure for the levy of penalty was legally complied with when the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner did not issue a notice under section 274 before the completion of the assessment ? " These are the facts of the case of Bakshi Mohd. Yu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal, question No. 2 in both the cases (supra) relating to the point as to whether or not the procedure for levy of penalty was legally complied with has been specifically withdrawn, and the learned counsel has made a statement that no opinion need be given on this question, which he did not press. Our order, therefore, will be confined only to question No. 1, referred to by the Tribunal in both these cases, and which is as to whether or not the assessee had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of his income so as to fall within the ambit of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. Before answering the references, it may be necessary to mention a few admitted facts as adverted to by the Tribunal in its order of reference. (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the legislature had intentionally used the word " deliberately " before the word " furnished inaccurate particulars of such income " and thereby intended that every furnishing of inaccurate particulars would not attract levy of penalty unless the conduct of the assessee is deliberate and wilful. In a recent Division Bench decision of this court in I. T. Reference No. 4 of 1972, Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sadiq Ali Bros, we construed section 271(1)(c) and observed as follows : " In the instant case the assessee's conduct falls within the second part of section 271(1)(c) and not the first part, that is to say, the assessee is alleged to have deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. As the assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were duly signed and verified by the assessees. It also appears that the assessees had produced all the books of account before the Income-tax Officer who detected the default committed by the assessees. The learned Tribunal appears to have been carried away by two important circumstances. In the first place they thought that by virtue of the amendment of section 271 of the Income-tax Act which replaced the old section 28, the statute had to be construed more strictly and differently. This reasoning of the Tribunal is not at all supported by the language of section 28 of the previous Act or section 271(1)(c) of the present Act. By virtue of the amendment only the numbers of the sections have been changed but the contents remain the same. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to us that the legislature did contemplate cases wherein, in spite of the fact that the returns are duly verified and signed by the assessees, they may contain certain errors and omissions due to neligence, oversight, forgetfulness and such other reasons and it was to meet such a situation that the word " deliberately " was inserted in section 271(1)(c) of the new Act and section 28 of the old Act. It is well-settled that a fiscal statute must be strictly construed to give every benefit of doubt to the subject . When, therefore, the legislature intended that no penalty should be imposed on the assessee unless his omission is deliberate, the court must carry out the object and the intention of the legislature. For these reasons we think th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
