HUF would have gone unnoticed and would have escaped from tax

IT : Penalty to be leviable where if department had not taken up for scrutiny, additional income of assessee from HUF would have gone unnoticed and would have escaped from tax
■■■
[2014] 50 taxmann.com 314 (Kerala)
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Commissioner of Income-tax
v.
L. Vishnudas*
DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ.
AND A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
IT APPEAL NO. 306 OF 2009
JANUARY  17, 2014
Section 271(1)(c), read with section 143, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income (Addition to income) - Assessment year 1996-97 - Assessee filed his return by declaring that income of HUF was included in his return - It was observed that only a small portion of HUF income was declared by assessee leaving out a major portion of said income - Further, in response to scrutiny notice, revised return was filed, in which assessee made addition to his income - It was observed that if department had not taken up for scrutiny, additional income from HUF would have gone unnoticed and it would have escaped from computation of tax - Whether therefore, penalty to be leviable under section 271(1)(c) - Held, yes [Paras 10 and 11] [In favour of revenue]