Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Purushotamdas and ors. - Court Judgment |
| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/509866 |
| Subject | Direct Taxation |
| Court | Madhya Pradesh High Court |
| Decided On | Jan-08-1998 |
| Case Number | M.C.C. No. 626 of 1993 8 January 1998 A. Y. 1967-68 to 1976-77 |
| Reported in | (1998)149CTR(MP)151 |
| Appellant | Commissioner of Income Tax |
| Respondent | Purushotamdas and ors. |
| Advocates: | A. Sapre, for the Revenue B.L. Nema, for the Assessee |
Excerpt:
.....tax reference--question of law--deletion of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) by tribunal ratio & held : levy of penalty is a discretionary order and the tribunal has exercised its discretion setting aside the penalty after satisfying itself that there was no conscious concealement on the part of the assessee, therefore, no referable question of law did arise out of the tribunal's order deleting the penalty. application : also to current assessment year. a.y. : 1967-68 to 1976-77 income tax act 1961 s.256(2) in the madhya pradesh high court a.k. mathur, c.j. & s.k. kulshrestha, j. income tax act, 1961, section 256(2) - motor vehicles act, 1988
[c.a. no. 59/1988]sections 128 & 168: [a.k. patnaik, c.j. & a.m. sapre & s.k. seth, jj] contributory negligence on part of motorcyclist..........aside the penalty. while disposing of the appeal, the tribunal observed that in order to justify levy of penalty, there has to be some material or circumstances leading to the reasonable conclusion that the amount represented the income of the assessee of the particular assessment year. it was also observed that there can not be levy of penalty as a matter of course. accordingly, the tribunal set aside the penalty for all the ten assessment years.we have gone through the matter and we are of the opinion that levy of penalty is a discretionary order and the tribunal has exercised its discretion setting aside the penalty after satisfying itself that there was no conscious concealment on the part of the assessee. no question of law arises in this case to call for the statement of the case.....
Judgment:A.K. Mathur, C.J.
This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at the instance of revenue for calling statement of case from the Tribunal on the following question of law :
'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) even after confirming the unexplained investment in questions appeal?'
The Assessees' premises were searched on 21-1-1976 and on the basis of seised material, assessments for assessment years 1967-68 to 1976-77 were completed. The assessees concealed unexplained investments. The assessing officer imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by this penalty, the assessees filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who confirmed the order of the assessing officer. Hence, the assessees approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal after considering the matter allowed the appeal of the assessed and set aside the penalty. While disposing of the appeal, the Tribunal observed that in order to justify levy of penalty, there has to be some material or circumstances leading to the reasonable conclusion that the amount represented the income of the assessee of the particular assessment year. It was also observed that there can not be levy of penalty as a matter of course. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the penalty for all the ten assessment years.
We have gone through the matter and we are of the opinion that levy of penalty is a discretionary order and the Tribunal has exercised its discretion setting aside the penalty after satisfying itself that there was no conscious concealment on the part of the assessee. No question of law arises in this case to call for the statement of the case from the Tribunal, Consequently, this application under section 256(2) of the Act is rejected.