- (1.) These appeals are instituted by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) for the asst. yrs. 1979-80 to 1985-86 on the common grounds that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 without going through the facts of the case when the assessee did not have any mens rea to conceal the income and, therefore, the imposition of penalty is bad in law. Since common issues and common grounds are involved in these appeals, they are decided and disposed of together for the sake of convenience.
(2.) In this case although the original assessment was completed the Assessing Officer (AO) subsequently found that the assessee received Rs. 5,664, Rs. 6,008 Rs. 8,981, Rs. 11,062, Rs. 3,640, Rs. 21,840 and Rs. 15,950 for the asst. yrs. 1979-80 to 1985-86 respectively, as royalty from Calcutta Book House (in short CBH) during the previous years relevant to these assessment years. The AO, therefore, reopened the assessments under s. 147 as the assessee did not disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for his assessments and the assessments were completed under s. 143(3)/147 after the returns of income in response to notices under s. 148 were filed and the penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) were duly initiated. A show-cause notice under s. 271(1)(c)/274 was served on the assessee and the assessee submitted a written explanation wherein it is stated that the assessee received royalty money from two companies - (i) Book Syndicate (P) Ltd. and (ii) CBH owned by the same person. It is further mentioned that the assessee was under the impression that the certificate regarding royalty received from Book Syndicate (P) Ltd. also included royalty from CBH. Before the AO the mistake was admitted as due to oversight. The AO rejected the explanation of the assessee as not reasonable since according to him, the receipt of royalty involved is not only for this year but also for various years i.e., from asst. yrs. 1979-80 to 1985-86. According to him it is not reasonable that the assessee continuously failed to notice this additional receipt in so many years. The AO, therefore, came to the conclusion that the assessee has deliberately suppressed the receipts of royalty by concealing the particulars of his income and has also furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. He, therefore, imposed the penalty of Rs. 3,460, Rs. 4,768, Rs. 5,977, Rs. 7,300, Rs. 2,374, Rs. 14,722 and Rs. 9,868 for the asst. yrs. 1979-80 to 1985-86 respectively under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.
(3.) Before the CIT(A) it was submitted that the assessee received royalty money from two companies viz., (i) Book Syndicate (P) Ltd. and (ii) CBH owned by the same person and the royalty received from the first concern was more than that of the second concern. It was also stated that one certificate was issued annually by the Book Syndicate (P) Ltd. showing the royalty received by the assessee and by mistake the royalty received from CBH was not included in the return prepared by the assessee for all these years. It was further explained that the assessee was busy with his college work and writing works and through oversight he did not disclose the royalty received from CBH. The CIT(A) considered the submissions of the assessee and came to the conclusion that the explanation that the assessee made a mistake by oversight is not acceptable because a person with sound mind cannot repeat the mistake year after year and it is, therefore, not probable to believe that the assessee continuously failed to declare this additional money in so many years. According to the CIT(A) this only establishes that the assessee deliberately and intentionally suppressed the receipt of royalty by concealing the particulars of his income and has deliberately furnished the inaccurate particulars of income. He, therefore, confirmed the imposition of penalties for all these years. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee has preferred these appeals to the Tribunal.;