Case Details

Citation(s)
1974 SLG 402 1974 SLD 402 (1974) 93 ITR 38

IT REFERENCE Nos. 1 AND 9 OF 1972 JULY 11, 1973
S.M.F. ALI, C.J. AND, JASWANT SINGH, J.
H.L. Chada and R.N. Kaul for the Applicant. J.L. Bhan for the Commissioner.

Bakshi Mohd. Yusuf and Bakshi Mohd. Shafi

v.

Commissioner of IncomE tax

Law:

Section:

Section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Assessment year 1962-63 - Assessee was working partner in firm - He while filing return showed salary which he received from firm but did not show share of profits received by him although particulars of income from his share in said firm were furnished by assessee to department later - ITO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Whether, on facts, assessee's conduct in not giving correct particulars in his return could not be regarded as deliberate - Held, yes - Whether therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not exigible - Held, yes FACTS The assessee was a working partner in the firm. While submitting his return for the relevant assessment year, the assessee showed a salary which he was receiving from the firm but did not show the share of profits received by him, although the particulars of the income from his share in the said firm were furnished by the assessee to the department later. The ITO levied a penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal confirmed the order of penalty. On reference : HELD Section 271(1)(c) was amended by the Finance Act of 1964 by which the word "deliberately" was deleted and this amendment took place on 1-4-1964, that is to say a year after the assessment in question. It was, therefore, manifest that the cases of the assessees would have to be governed not by section 271 as amended by the Act of 1964, but as they stood prior to 1964. A perusal of this section clearly shows that the legislature had intentionally used the word "deliberately" before the word "furnished inaccurate particulars of such income" and thereby intended that every furnishing of inaccurate particulars would not attract levy of penalty unless the conduct of the assessee is deliberate and wilful. In the instant case the assessees merely committed the error of not showing their share of profits in the firms. Nevertheless, the returns were duly signed and verified by the assessees. It also appeared that the assessees had produced all the books of account before the ITO who detected the default committed by the assessees. The Tribunal appeared to have been carried away by…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492