TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner amounting to Rs. 10,000 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" The facts lie in a very narrow compass. The reference relates to the assessment year 1968-69. For the relevant assessment year the assessee, an individual, filed his return on September 4, 1968, declaring a total income of Rs. 14,917. An ex parte assessment was completed on March 29, 1972, on a total income of Rs. 98,417. It appears that the assessment was reopened, whereafter the assessee filed a revised return some time in January, 1974, declaring a total income of Rs. 24,080 and was accordingly assessed. In the said return a sum of Rs. 10,000 was included, which according to the assessee was on the basis of a voluntary disclosure petition filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng got some inkling about the merits of the said argument, the Income-tax Officer, without waiting for the decision of the Tribunal, referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for the purpose of levy of penalty under the said section. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, accordingly, after issuing a show-cause notice to the assessee levied a penalty of Rs. 10,000 on him. It is interesting to note that, while levying the penalty, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner fairly noted that he was levying the penalty to safeguard the interests of the Revenue as the assessee had challenged before the Tribunal the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to levy such a penalty. Being aggrieved by the second penalty order, the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o penalty was leviable on him, particularly when the Commissioner of Income-tax, while accepting the settlement had suggested "that the penalties that may be leviable on him under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of each of the assessment years mentioned in para. 8 should be limited to the minimum leviable in accordance with the provisions of section 271 of the Act as applicable to each year". It is asserted that in view of the said direction by the Commissioner of Income-tax a minimum penalty was leviable on the assessee. We are unable to agree with learned counsel. As noted above, the assessment year involved is 1968-69. We are, therefore, concerned with the provisions of law as they existed prior to some signif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nspecting Assistant Commissioner to record a finding that the income disclosed by the assessee in his settlement petition before the Commissioner of Income-tax was the income of the assessee which he did not disclose with a motive an(] was compelled to do so on account of the fear of investigation which are said to have been conducted by the Directorate of Intelligence. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has failed to demonstrate that the stand of the assessee that the settlement was arrived at to buy peace of mind and to avoid litigation with the Department was not correct. As noted above, in the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, levying penalty, there is not even a whisper either about the nature of the enquiries conducte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
