VARKEY CHACKO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1151/1982Supreme Court1993 INSC 27624 August 1993Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, S.P. BHARUCHA VARKEY CHACKO8 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee filed his return on April 16, 1970. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) made assessment orders and initiated penalty proceedings on March 27, 1972, finding concealment of income not exceeding Rs. 25,000. The ITO imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 on March 27, 1974. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) set aside the penalty, holding the ITO lacked jurisdiction. The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) confirmed the AAC's order, ruling that the law in force on the date of filing the return governed penalty imposition and the 1970 amendment was not retrospective. The ITAT referred the matter to the High Court. The High Court, relying on a Supreme Court decision, held the competence to initiate penalty proceedings is governed by the law in force on the date of initiation and found the ITO had jurisdiction under the amended provisions. The assessee appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that a penalty for concealment of income can only be imposed when the assessing authority is satisfied that such concealment has occurred, and penalty proceedings can be initiated only after an assessment order finding such concealment is made. The crucial factor is the authority that has the power to impose the penalty at the time of initiation of proceedings. In this case, the ITO made the assessment order and initiated penalty proceedings on March 27, 1972. On this date, the amended provisions of Section 274(2) were in operation. These amended provisions entitled the ITO to impose a penalty in cases where the concealed income did not exceed Rs. 25,000, as was the situation here. Therefore, the High Court correctly answered the reference in favour of the Revenue. The Court dismissed the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the law governing the imposition of penalty for concealment of income is the law in force on the date the return was filed, or the law in force on the date of initiation of penalty proceedings? (Question of law, turning on Section 271(1)(c) and Section 274(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions: The offence of concealment was committed when the return was filed. Therefore, the unamended provisions of Section 274(2) applied, and the ITO had no authority to impose the penalty. Relied on C.I.T. v. Mis Ollkar Saran and Salls and Brij Mohan v. C.I. T. Revenue's contentions: The ITO satisfied himself of concealment on March 27, 1972, when the assessment order was made and penalty proceedings were initiated. On that date, the amended provisions of Section 274(2) were in force, granting the ITO authority to impose the penalty. Relied on Jain Brothers and Ors. v. Union of India, D.M. Manasvi v. C.I.T., and C.I. T v. Dhadi Salm.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 274(2),Section 276,Section 271(1)(c),Section 256(2),Section 271(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A VARKEY CHACKO v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AUGUST 24, 1993 B [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.P. BHARUCHA, J.J.] Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 274(2)

Effect of Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act 1971)-(;onceabnent of C incon1e-Penalty·-ln1position of-fVho ·1nay inipose and in what 111easure-- Jwi iction of ITO.

Sub-section (2) of section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was amended with effect from 1st April, 1971. Prior to the amendment by the Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1970 where in a case falling under clause D (iii) of sub-section (1) of Section 276, the minimum penalty imposable exceeded the sum of Rs. 1,000 the Income Tax Officer was obliged to refer the case .to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. By reasun of the amendme.nt the Income-tax Officer was obliged to refer to the Inspecting Assistant !Commissioner such cases falling under clause (c) of sub-section E (1) of section 271 where the amount of income, as determined by the ITO on assessment, in respect of which particulars had been concealed or inaccurate particulars had been furnished exceeded the sum of Rs. 25,000. The appellant-assessee filed his return on 16th April, 1970. On 27th March, 1972, the I

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 274(2)

All 42 judgments and leading authorities on Section 274(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →