Itta/402/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Dr. T.ravi Kumar

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C BHANU I.T.T.A. No. 402 of 2011 DATED: 24.7.2013 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax,Hyderabad. … Appellant AndDr. T. Ravi Kumar,Nellore. … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C BHANU I.T.T.A. No.402 of 2011 Judgment:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of thelearned Tribunal dated 31.8.2010 in relation to assessment year1998-99 and is sought to be admitted on the following suggestedquestion of law: 1.In the facts and circumstances of the case, when theAssessing Officer levied penalty as there was concealment ofincome and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of respondent-assessee in terms of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income TaxAct, 1961, whether the orders of the Hon’ble Tribunalcanceling the said penalty without due consideration andappreciation of related material facts on record is noterroneous and perverse in law and liable to be set aside ? We have heard Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel forthe appellant and have gone through the impugned judgment andorder on the point on which it is sought to be admitted. It is settled position of law that it has to be establishedbeyond reasonable doubt that the disputed income represents theconcealed income of the assessee. The learned Tribunal has found on fact that the addition in the quantum of appeals of theassessee could be sustained on the predominance ofprobabilities. Therefore, the pre-condition of imposing penalty,namely, the complete proof of concealment of income far fromfiling of inaccurate particulars under Section 271(1)(c) have notbeen fulfilled in this case. We are in agreement with the findings of the learned Tribunal. In view of the probability of the income in relation to the assesseeis not sufficient, it has to be established that the disputed incomebelongs to the asssessee. On fact, it was found by all theauthorities that there was a dispute as to whose income it was. Inthe case of probability, the penalty was not called for. The learnedTribunal, according to us has decided the matter correctly. Onother points, no appeal has been preferred. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ________________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ______________________ K.C. BHANU, J 24.07.2013 pnb