Commissioner of Income Tax vs Jabalpur Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd.

The appellant by Shri Rohit Arya, learned senior counsel with Shri Sanjay Lal.

Heard on admission.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has not considered Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The contention of counsel for the appellant is that under Explanation 4, where the amount of income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished exceeds the total income assessed, means the tax that would have been chargeable on the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished. The question is whether the tax would be chargeable on the income in which all the particulars have been concealed. The respondents have shown loss in income and the Tribunal has held that in the case of loss even after concealment is added then also no tax will be leviable, therefore, the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is not attracted. The Tribunal has referred to the apex court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Prithipal Singh and Co., wherein the appeal has been dismissed by affirming the judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Prithipal Singh and Co., between the same parties.

We are of the opinion that it is not established that even after including the concealed income the assessee was liable to Income Tax. Therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that no penalty can be imposed when the income is not assessed to Income Tax u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed summarily.