COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The following questions have been framed vide order dated 02.02.2001 :-

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that cogent reasons have been given for imposition of penalty against the assessee under Section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the assessee furnished return of income of Rs. 1,45,40,720/- on 20.03.1977 but he did not disclose deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs in the Bank of Tokyo, New Delhi Branch on 12.05.1976 which has been in the form of Pay Orders which were issued on 30.03.1976. The Assessing Officer, Central Circle-VI, New Delhi had already required the assessee vide his letter No. ITO/C C/VI/81-82/MLJ/6288 dated 17.12.1981 to explain about the said transaction. The assessee's original assessment was made for the assessment year 1976-77 under Section 143(3) on 22.03.1977 which was rectified vide order dated 21.09.1977 under Section 154 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,45,41,305/-. Thereafter, proceeding under Section 148 read with Section 147(1) was initiated on 14.02.1978. However, after several orders, ultimately the final re-assessment was completed on 24.03.1992 on total income of Rs. 1,96,91,390/- and before that, the assessee submitted the revised return, however, in the year 1984. Therefore, it is clear from the facts of the case that to cover up the said amount of deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs in the Bank of Tokyo, New Delhi Branch on 12.05.1976, the assessee who had shown his profit to the tune of 20%, increased his profit from 20% to 27.5 % in the revised return and, therefore, it was a clear case of concealment of income by the assessee. This finding has been recorded by the Assessing Officer in penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(C) and has been upheld by the CIT (Appeals), however, has been reversed by the Income Tax Tribunal vide order dated 06.07.2000. It is submitted that in view of the undisputed fact, question of law arises that whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that there is no concealment of income and, therefore, penalty could not have been imposed under Section 271(1)(C) of the Act of 1961 and, therefore, was not justified in deleting the levy of penalty amounting to Rs. 39,65,561/-.