High Court Of Allahabad
CIT vs. Saran Khandsari Sugar Works
Sections 271(1)(c) Expln.
Asst. Year 1972-73
M.C. Agarwal & R.K. Agarwal, JJ.
IT Ref. No. 294 of 1981
21st September, 1999
A.N. Mahajan, for the Revenue : None, for the Assessee
BY THE COURT :
In compliance with this Courtâs direction under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, made by order dt. 9th Sept., 1980, in ITA No. 125 of 1980, the Tribunal, New Delh, has referred the following question stated to be of law and to arise out of its order dt. 27th Oct., 1979, passed in ITA No. 1393/Delhi of 1978-79 for the asst. yr. 1972-73, for the opinion of this Court : “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee could be held to have discharged the onus under the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) of the Act ?” Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the AACâs finding that there was no concealment on the part of the assessee ? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the AACâs order cancelling the penalty imposed on the assessee ?”
2. The penalty in question was deleted by the AAC. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenueâs appeal by observing as under : “2. The AAC deleted the penalty for the following reasons : As held by the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mansa Ram & Sons (1975) CTR (All) 163 : (1977) 106 ITR 307 (All) TC 50R.625, a conditional surrender of cash credits or agreement to certain assessment does not attract penalty proceedings. On the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, it appears to be obvious that the income assessed by the ITO was agreed to by the appellant as a measure of co-operation and with a view to escaping penal consequences, I find from the assessment order that no basis is given for estimating the income at Rs. 35,000. It, therefore, appears that the agreement was conditional. In such circumstances, penalty cannot be imposed. From another angle also, the fact as noticed in the assessment order do not indicate any concealment at all. The income was merely estimated without finding any concealment as such. From this angle also. Therefore, penalty is not attracted. The penalty order is, therefore, cancelled. The Revenue is in appeal. Sri B.D. Sainia, appearing for the Revenue, supported the order of the ITO. For the assessee reliance was placed on the AACâs order. After hearing the parties, we find ourselves in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of the AAC on the facts of the case we decline to interfere.” We have heard Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the CIT. No one has appeared for the respondent. The finding that the assessee had agreed to a higher assessment on the condition that no penalty would beimposed, is a finding of fact. Similarly, the finding that no actual concealment was estimated is also a finding of fact and, therefore, the assessee would be held to have discharged the onus under the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. We, therefore, answer all the questions in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
[Citation : 246 ITR 216]