Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Joginder Singh Saluja

PDF · subscribers
ITA/69/2009HC Madhya Pradesh30 July 2014Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA MENON2 pages
For Petitioner: Sanjeev Tuli
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the concurrent orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the ITAT were in accordance with law. The Tribunal had interfered with the penalty on the ground that the assessee had disclosed the income of Rs. 60,00,000/- in the return and account books, although the source of income was not disclosed. The Tribunal held that since the income was shown in the return, the provisions of Section 69A were not attracted. The High Court found no substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of the appellate authorities. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal by the Revenue against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee, Shri Sanjay Lal, had declared an income of Rs. 60,00,000/- in his return. The Assessing Officer (AO) imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/- under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for alleged concealment of income. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the ITAT concurrently deleted the penalty. The basis for deletion was that while the income was disclosed in the return, the source of income was not disclosed, and therefore, Section 69A was not attracted. The Revenue is challenging this deletion.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT erred in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the assessee disclosed income but not its source. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the Tribunal. However, the reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, which was upheld by the High Court, suggests that the assessee's argument likely centered on the fact that the income was disclosed in the return, and therefore, Section 69A, which deals with undisclosed income from unexplained sources, was not applicable. The penalty could not be imposed solely for non-disclosure of the source when the income itself was declared. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 69A was justified because the assessee had concealed income by not disclosing its source, even though the quantum of income was declared in the return. The Revenue likely argued that the non-disclosure of the source amounted to concealment of income, attracting the penalty provisions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 69A,Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

I.T.A.No.69/2009

30.7.2014 Shri Sanjay Lal, counsel for appellant. Shri Manikant Sharma, counsel for respondent. This is revenue's appeal under section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 and challenge made is to the order concurrently passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) and Appellate Tribunal in the matter, interfering with penalty imposed by the assessing officer under section 271(1)(c) read with section 69A of the Act on account of concealment of income of Rs.60,00,000/- in the return, a penalty of Rs.25,00,000/- was imposed by the assessing officer. However the Commissioner (Appeal) and Tribunal had interfered with the imposition of penalty merely on the ground that in the return and account books, assessee has disclosed income of Rs.60,00,000/-, however he did not disclose the source of income only, for which penalty could not be imposed. It is held that as the income is shown in the return the provision of section 69A are not attracted. The concurrent order passed by the Appellate authority and the discretion exercised, being in accordance with law, we find no substantial question of law warranting interference of this Court in this appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. C.C., as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) (Alok Verma) Judge

Judge I.T.A.No.69/2009

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →