High Court Of Madras
CIT vs. G.R. Rajendran
Sections 271(1)(c)
Asst. Year 1982-83
R. Jayasimha Babu & K. Raviraja Pandian, JJ.
TC Nos. 33 & 34 of 1998
7th October, 2002
Counsel Appeared
Mrs. Pushya Sitaram, for the Revenue : None appeared, for the Assessee
JUDGMENT
R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. :
The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in cancelling the penalty levied under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 ?”
The assessment year is 1982-83.
The AO levied penalty on the ground that the assessees had concealed their income inasmuch as a raid carried out in the assessees’ premises had resulted in substantial quantum of jewellery being found, some of which had not been declared by the assessees and the members of their family. The assessees had offered an explanation for that excess quantity of jewellery. That explanation however was not considered by the AO. He proceeded to levy the penalty by observing that the period of limitation was running out and therefore he has to make a final order.
The CIT(A), on appeal, agreeing with the assessee that there had been no consideration of his explanation set aside the penalty that had been imposed. The Revenue carried the matter to the Tribunal which agreed with the CIT(A). Sec. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, in its Explanation refers to the explanation offered by the person being found to be false or not being one which the person offering the explanation is able to substantiate. The consideration of the explanation offered is, therefore, a duty cast upon the officer imposing penalty. In the absence of such consideration and the finding that the explanation is false or that the assessee had failed to substantiate the explanation offered, the officer cannot proceed to hold that there has been concealment of income attracting levy of penalty.
The question referred is therefore answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
[Citation : 259 ITR 109]
