SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1980 Supreme(Cal) 115

High Court Of Calcutta
S. C. DEB, R. N. PYNE
DILIP KUMAR MITRA - Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - Respondent
Income-Tax Reference 50  Of  1978
Decided On : 03/31/1980

Advocates Appeared:
A.S.Lahiry, AJIT SEN GUPTA, P.K.PAL

Imposition of penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) read with Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the Tribunal's justification in confirming the quantum of penalty.

Headnote:

Penalty - Income Tax Act - Imposition of penalty on the assessee under Section 271 (1) (c) read with Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Tribunal's justification in ordering penalty and confirming the quantum of penalty

Fact of the Case:

The assessee did not show income from the business and capital gains in the return of income. The inclusion of income and capital gains in the assessment was upheld by the Tribunal. The penalty proceedings found that the assessee had concealed income particulars and furnished inaccurate particulars.

Finding of the Court:

The Tribunal was justified in ordering the imposition of penalty on the income from the business but not in confirming the quantum of penalty which included the capital gains. The Tribunal was directed to re-hear both parties on the issue of inclusion of penalty relating to capital gains after the quantum appeal is finally disposed of.

Issues: Imposition of penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) read with Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and confirmation of the quantum of penalty by the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal's finding that the business belonged to the assessee and the imposition of penalty for concealing income particulars influenced the decision.

Final Decision: Question No. 1 answered in the affirmative and in favor of the revenue. Question No. 2 answered in the negative and in favor of the assessee. Tribunal directed to re-hear both parties on the issue of inclusion of penalty relating to capital gains after the quantum appeal is finally disposed of.

S. C. DEB, J.

( 1 ) THE following questions are involved in this reference under Section 256 (2) of the I. T. Act, 1961:"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in ordering the imposition of penalty on the assessee under Section 271 (1) (c) read with Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the annual income of M/s. Hindusthan Trading Corporation on the return filed by Sm. Bhadra Mitra ?

( 2 ) IF the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the quantum of penalty and dismissing the appeal? "2. The assessee is an individual and the reference relates to the assessment year 1965-66. In the return of income the assessee did not show the income from the business under the name and style of M/s. Hindusthan Trading Corporation and the capital gains from the sale of a land which stood in the name of his wife.

( 3 ) THE ITO included the income of Hindusthan Trading Corporation and also the capital gains in respect of the aforesaid in the assessment. The AAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee who filed a further appeal before the Tribunal.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal found that the business of Hindusthan Trading Corporation belonged to the assessee. The said finding of the Tribunal was based on an admission made by the assessee in the earlier appeals that the aforesaid business belonged to him. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal upheld the inclusion of income from the said business.

( 5 ) THE Tribunal, however, remanded the question of inclusion of capital gains in the assessment of the assessee to the AAC for a fresh decision.

( 6 ) IN the penalty proceedings, the IAC to whom the penalty proceedings were referred, held that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income and furnished inaccurate particulars thereof both with regard to the income from the business of Hindusthan Trading Corporation and the capital gains. The AAC has rejected the appeal filed by the assessee. The Tribunal has sustained the imposition of penalty.

( 7 ) IN view of the facts and the circumstance of the case relating to Hindusthan Trading Corporation, we answer question No, 1 in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue.

( 8 ) WE now reframe question No. 2 as follows :" Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the quantum of penalty ? "

( 9 ) AS already stated, in the quantum appeal the Tribunal has remanded the question of inclusion of capital gains in the assessment of the assessee. Therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal was not justified in confirming the quantum of penalty which included the capital gains.

( 10 ) IN the premises, we answer question No. 2 in the negative and in favour of the assessee.

( 11 ) THE Tribunal will re-hear both the parties on the issue of inclusion of penalty relating to capital gains after the quantum appeal for the aforesaid assessment year is finally disposed of.

( 12 ) THERE will be no order as to costs.

( 13 ) LET a copy of the order of the Tribunal passed in the quantum appeal be kept on the record as desired by the learned counsel for both the parties.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top