High Court Of Madras
CIT vs. Raja Corporation
Sections 271(1)(c), 256(2)
Asst. Year 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81
Ratnam & Somasundaram, JJ.
T.C.P. Nos. 660 to 663 of 1991
19th August, 1992
C. V. Rajan, for the Petitioner : P. P. S. Janardhana Raja, for the Respondent
In these tax case petitions under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, the Revenue seeks a direction to the Tribunal to refer the following common question of law for the opinion of this Court :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 ?”
2. We find from the order of the Tribunal that it was persuaded to delete the penalty imposed on the assessee on the footing that there had been errors in the totalling in the books of account of the assessee and after those mistakes were found out, the assessee had voluntarily informed the authorities and had also filed revised returns. In this background, the Tribunal took the view that there could not have been any concealment of the particulars of income by the assessee justifying the levy of penalty. The Tribunal was quite justified in the view it took, for, it is seen that the assessee had apprised the authorities on 20th March, 1984, stating that there were totalling mistakes in the books of account for the asst. yrs. 1976-77 to 1980-81, and that there had been an excess totalling in respect of the asst. yr. 1980-81, though we are concerned in these applications with the asst. yrs. 1977-78 to 1980-81. We also find that the books of account had been produced by the assessee before the authorities and they had not also discovered any mistakes, but the totalling errors and excess totalling were brought to the notice of the authorities by the assessee and this was also followed by the filing of the revised returns. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the assessee cannot be taken to task by the levy of penalty, as the assessee was not aware of the errors originally and they were discovered by the assessee later and immediately, the assessee had brought it to the notice of the authorities by a letter as well as revised returns. We are, therefore, of the view that, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was quite justified in deleting the imposition of penalty on the assessee and we are of the view that no referable question of law can be said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal. These tax case petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
[Citation:205 ITR 533]