TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... racted. The decision relied upon by the Tribunal relates to the assessment years prior to April 1, 1976, when the present Explanation was not in the statute book, and, therefore, they are not applicable in the present case. We are therefore, of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has completely misdirected itself in cancelling the penalty. We, accordingly, answer the question referred at the instance of the Revenue in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. - R.K. Agrawal And Vikram Nath JJ. For the Commissioner : A.N. Mahajan. For the Assessee : None JUDGMENT 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned first appellate authority upheld the addition of Rs. 93,000 but reduced the addition from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 33,000 on account of undisclosed profit. 7. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 75,000. Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The learned first appellate court upheld the imposition of penalty, but reduced it to Rs. 77,500 in round figure. 8. Aggrieved with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which for the reasons given in the order, cancelled the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. While cancelling the penalty, the Tribunal relied upo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e had not been correctly disclosed and which could be added only after incriminating documents were recovered from the assessee's premises as a result of search and seizure operations. In this view of the matter, the Departmental authorities held that the assessee could not be said to be prevented from reasonable cause from filing the return in time. The assessee's contentions to the contrary were not accepted by the Departmental authorities and the Tribunal for the reasons given concurred with the view of the Departmental authorities. The Tribunal also held that the criteria laid down by the Legislature under section 271(1)(c) are not the same as for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(a). The Tribunal has recorded that there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hari Ram Sri Ram [1987] 167 ITR 578 which was based on the decision of the hon'ble apex court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah and Co. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 457. 13. Shri A.N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue, submitted that after the insertion of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) vide the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, with effect from April 1, 1976, the element of mens rea need not require to be proved at all. It is enough if the explanation offered by the assessee is either found to be false or is unsubstantiated, then the income, which has been added is deemed to have been concealed by such a person. He further submitted that the decision relied upon by the Tribunal are all relatable t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
