TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e court was delivered by A. R. DAVE J. -At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion by the lncome-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench "A", under the provisions of section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was leviable on the assessee for the assessment years under reference ?" We have heard learned standing counsel Shri Tanvish Bhatt for the Central Government appearing for the applicant, and the learned advocate, Shri K. H. Kaji, appearing for the respondent-assessee. The facts giving rise to the reference, in a nutshell, are as under : The respondent-assessee is a partnership firm. It filed its returns for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81, the previous years being Samvat years 2034 and 2035, respectively. After filing the returns, the assessments were framed on October 18, 1979, and February 12, 1981, for the said two years, respectively. In the course of internal audit, it was revealed that the assessee had made certain mista ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon the assessee as the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income. The Assessing Officer ultimately imposed penalty of Rs. 78,920 for the assessment year 1979-80 and penalty of Rs. 1,10,790 for the assessment year 1980-81. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It was the case of the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax, (Appeals) that there was no concealment of particulars of income by the assessee and as there was no mala fide intention of the assessee, the penalty ought not to have been imposed upon the assessee by the Assessing Officer. It was submitted before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that upon knowing the fact with regard to the mistake committed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer was informed by the assessee under letter dated July 11, 1981, It was also submitted that the assessee came to know about the mistake which had been committed in totalling at the time when the accounts for the assessment year 1982-83 were being prepared. Thus, it was submitted that the assessee himself had revealed the facts with regard to the mistakes commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been given to the assessee, possibly the assessee would not have written the letter dated July 11, 1981. It has been also submitted by him that though the assessee had written letter dated July 11, 1981, only upon getting the notice dated July 4, 1981, the assessee did not refer to the notice dated July 4, 1981, addressed to him by the Assessing Officer. He has submitted that, in fact, the assessee was aware of the fact that he had made incorrect totals so as to understate the amount of income returned for the relevant assessment years. It has been, therefore, submitted by him that the view expressed by the dissenting Accountant Member of the Tribunal is just and proper. According to him, the Tribunal ought to have imposed penalty as the assessee had deliberately stated incorrect figures while totalling the trial balance. He has drawn our attention to the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act to show that this is a just case where penalty should be imposed. It has been submitted by him that in fact by making incorrect totals, the assessee had made an effort to give inaccurate details or particulars about the income as the income had been reduced on account of deliberate act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g guilty mind. Whether the assessee wanted to conceal the particulars of his income or wanted to furnish inaccurate particulars of such Income is dependent on the state of mind of the assessee and when the Tribunal has opined that the assessee is not guilty of concealment of particulars of his income, this court should not reverse the finding of the Tribunal because the finding pertains to fact and this court should not disturb the finding of the Tribunal unless it is found to be perverse, and according to the learned advocate, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be considered as perverse. He has further submitted that even the Revenue has not submitted that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal is perverse. In the circumstances, according to him, the view expressed by the Tribunal should not be changed by this court. We have heard the learned advocates at length and have also gone through the judgments cited by the learned advocates. Upon perusal of the relevant orders and hearing the learned advocates, it is not in dispute that before the proceedings with regard to initiation of penalty and rectification started, the assessee had informed the Assessing Officer unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
