MANI JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS batch of Tax Revision Cases arise from a common order of the Kerala Agricultural Income tax appellate Tribunal, Additional bench, Kottayam dated 23. 11. 1995 in A. I. T. A. Nos. 140 to 143 of 1995.

(2.) THE common appellant before us was an assessee under the provisions of Kerala Agricultural Income tax Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act ). THE Agricultural Income tax Officer issued notices proposing to impose penalty under S. 20 of the Act against the assessee for the years 1986-87 to 1989-90 alleging that he had wilfully concealed income from an extent of 6. 02 acres of agricultural lands in his possession for the aforesaid years. THE officer pointed out that though the assessee had returned income from 6. 02 acres of land for the assessment year 1990-91, he had not disclosed the said extent and income therefrom in his returns relating to the previous years, that is to say 1986-87 to 1989-90. THE said proposal was objected to by the assessee and thus pleaded that there was no concealment of income since he had voluntarily submitted the returns. However, after considering the objections, the assessing authority imposed a penalty equivalent to 50% of the tax due for the four years in question. As against those orders the assessee filed appeals before the appellate authority but met with no success. Being aggrieved by the said appellate order the assessee filed further appeals before the Kerala Sales tax appellate Tribunal. However, those appeals were rejected by the Tribunal. As against the common order passed by the appellate Tribunal dated 23. 11. 1995, the present tax revision cases are filed.

(3.) THE levy of penalty is authorised under S. 20 of the act. THE relevant pro vision in the present context is contained in sub-s. (1)of S. 20 which deals with imposition of penalty for concealment of income. THE said provision is as follows: "20. Penalty for concealment of income: - (1) If the Agricultural Income tax Officer, the Assistant commissioner, the Commissioner or the appellate Tribunal is satisfied that any person - (a) Co) (c) has concealed the particulars of his agricultural income or has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount of Agricultural Income tax and super tax if any, payable by him, a sum not exceeding that amount: Provided that" THE indispensable requirement for invoking the above provision is that the officer or authority who proposes to initiate the action shall be satisfied that the person concerned has concealed the particulars of his agricultural income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. When there is such satisfaction, the officer or the authority may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty a sum not exceeding the amount of agricultural Incometax, if any, payable in respect of the income involved in the concealment. This would indicate the maximum penalty payable under this provision is the sum equal to the tax payable in respect of the income involved in the concealment. That does not mean the maximum penalty shall be levied in all cases. THE provision confers the discretion on the officer or authority in determining the quantum of penalty and it shall hence be exercised reasonably applying the mind to the facts of each case.