2004 (12) TMI 67 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - in the present case as the applicant had not produced the books of account to establish that the amount of Rs. 36, 956 related to the earlier years the onus which lay upon it has not been discharged - the stand taken by the applicant for not producing the books of account of the earlier accounting periods on the plea that it had been eaten away by white ants will not absolve its liability to prove that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or any gross or wilful neglect on its part. penalty is imposable

Issues Involved:

1. Reasonable Opportunity
2. Onus of Explanation
3. Reversal of CIT(A) Order
4. Validity of Penalty
5. Consideration of Similar Brought Forward Opening Balance

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Reasonable Opportunity:

The court examined whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was justified in holding that a 'reasonable opportunity' was provided to the assessee. The assessee argued that the books of account had been destroyed by white ants and that he received the assessment order on March 11, 1983, the same day he submitted his reply, thus not having sufficient time to prepare a detailed response. However, the court found that the assessee had not claimed any further opportunity to submit additional explanations. The court concluded that submitting a reply without reservation and not requesting further time constituted reasonable opportunity, satisfying the principles of natural justice.

2. Onus of Explanation:

The court addressed whether the ITAT was correct in holding that the onus to explain the alleged difference lay on the assessee and not the Department. The court cited the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, which shifts the burden of proof to the assessee when the returned income is less than 80% of the assessed income. The assessee's explanation, unsupported by documentary proof, was deemed insufficient to discharge this onus. The court referred to several precedents, including the apex court's decisions in CIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose and Addl. CIT v. Jeevan Lal Sah, affirming that the burden of proof lies with the assessee under the Explanation.

3. Reversal of CIT(A) Order:

The court evaluated whether the ITAT was justified in reversing the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]'s order, which had canceled the penalty under section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) had accepted the assessee's contentions that the penalty was imposed without a proper hearing and that the Income-tax Officer failed to show that the entire difference arose in the accounting period corresponding to the assessment year 1975-76. The ITAT, however, found that the assessee had been given a reasonable opportunity and that the burden of proving the concealment was on the assessee, which was not discharged. The court upheld the ITAT's view, concluding that the reversal was justified.

4. Validity of Penalty:

The court considered whether the penalty of Rs. 37,000 was validly imposed under section 271(1)(c). The court noted that the assessee's failure to provide documentary evidence to support his explanation meant that the onus under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) was not discharged. The court emphasized that merely providing an explanation without proof does not suffice to rebut the presumption of concealment. The court upheld the ITAT's decision that the penalty was validly imposed.

5. Consideration of Similar Brought Forward Opening Balance:

The court examined whether the ITAT erred in not considering that there was a similar brought forward opening balance in the assessment year 1975-76 as in 1976-77. The court found that the assessee failed to produce books of account to substantiate that the amount of Rs. 36,956 related to earlier years. The court referred to the Division Bench decision in Haji Lal Mohd. Biri Works v. CIT, which held that the Department could draw an adverse inference if the assessee did not produce books of account. Thus, the court concluded that the ITAT's order was not vitiated by ignoring the brought forward balance.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the court answered all the questions referred to it in the affirmative, ruling in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The court held that the ITAT was justified in its findings on all issues, including the provision of reasonable opportunity, the onus of explanation, the reversal of the CIT(A) order, the validity of the penalty, and the consideration of similar brought forward opening balances. There was no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →