BACHUMAL UTTAM MAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following questions have been raised by the assessees under Section 256 (2) of the Income Tax Act: 1. "whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that penalty imposed U/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act is justified ? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the penalty so imposed is valid in the eye of law as the return in question were submitted in consequence of settlement arrived at the filing of return u/s 148 was merely a valid procedure to give the assessment a valid shape? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Tribunal is right in the eye of law in upholding that penalty U/s 271 (l) (c) of the Act in respect of income of Rs. 11,000/-as surrendered for the purchase of peace of mind and to avoid litigation in view of the settlement arrived at U/s 132 of the Income tax Act ? 4.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal wag justified in holding that there are positive material on record as parallel accounts which go to show that surrendered income represent income of particular year which the assessee knowingly and deliberately did not disclose in original return of income so as to warrant the conclusion that the assessee concealed the particulars of the income within the meaning of section 271 (1) (c) of the Income tax Act ? 5.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty would be exigible under the proviso of section 271 (l) (c) of the I. T. Act ? (6) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that action of assessee in agreeing to include certain income as an income of the year is admission of income having been concealed ? (7) Whether there was any evidence or material on record to show that Department had collected any evidence and that assessee had any transaction out side the books to legally justify levying of penalty ?"

(2.) THE prayer of the assessee is that a question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal and therefore the Income tax Appellate Tribunal should be directed to refer the above questions or any one of them being questions of law.

(3.) A question can be said, to arise out of the order of the Tribunal, which could be a question of law when a revised return has been submitted without there being any evidence in possession of the department. If some docunents have been seized or there is a positive evidence on the basis of which it could be said that there was concealment of income as in the present case where after the search and seizure even the order under Sec. 132 (5) was passed, the position would stand on different footing. It cannot be said to be a case of mere submission of revised return voluntarily. The assesses had no option after the department has gathered the evidence by way of search and, therefore, the' admission of the assessee by surrendering such concealed income by filing the revised return would be sufficient evidence for the purpose of levy of penalty.