Krishna Kumari Chamanlal and another vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another

S.H. Kapadia, J.—By this petition, the original petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated December 9, 1985, passed by respondent No. 1 u/s 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereby the Commissioner confirmed the order of the Income Tax Officer imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the said Act on the firm for the assessment years 1960-61, 1963-64 and 1964-65. During the pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner died. In the present case, both the authorities below have recorded a finding of fact to the effect that in 1965, search and seizure operations had taken place which detected bogus hundi notes; that the assessee had agreed to surrender Rs. 2,15,500, Rs. 23,74,100 and Rs. 28,46,200 in respect of the assessment years 1960-61, 1963-64 and 1964-65, respectively. Both the authorities below have come to the conclusion that although opportunity was provided to the petitioner pursuant to the penalty notice, the assessee did not avail of the said opportunity and they failed to show that the said amounts did not represent concealed income. The assessee also did not file any appeal against the orders imposing penalty. The Commissioner, however, by the impugned order dated December 9, 1985, found that the penalties levied by the Income Tax Officer were reasonable. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No. 1 in respect of the assessment year 1960-61 reduced the penalty amount to Rs. 1,00,000 and the revision petition filed by the assessee came to partly allowed.

In the present case, we do not find any merit in the petition. Firstly, the assessee did not avail of the opportunity given to show that the amounts mentioned above were not concealed income. Despite several opportunities, the assessee did not remain present. Secondly, no appeal was preferred. Thirdly, the record shows that the assessee agreed to surrender the amounts only after seizure operations took place in 1965. In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition fails. Rule is discharged. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no orders as to costs.