2003 (9) TMI 40 - HC - Income Tax

Business expenditure - Assessee had admitted that the substantial amounts relating to the relevant accounting years had in fact been received by the assessee from the Animal Husbandry Department - The assessee is in business. Payments were received in the course of its business against bills for supply of cattle-feed and other things to the Animal Husbandry Department. Therefore there cannot be any doubt that this is the income of the assessee - The only plea of the assessee was that the entire amount could not be treated as its income since a substantial part of it up to 80 to 90 % had to be distributed among the officers of the Animal Husbandry Department and others by way of bribe or illegal gratification Held that assessing authority was justified in taking the view that the assessee having admitted the receipt of the amount and having failed to prove the expenditure as claimed by it the entire amount was liable to be assessed at the hands of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of income based on receipts from Animal Husbandry Department, claim of bribe payments reducing taxable income, failure to provide evidence of expenditure, plea based on illegal act, adequacy of opportunity to present evidence.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96, and 1996-97. The assessee received payments from the Animal Husbandry Department, which led to reassessment notices under Section 148 of the Act. The assessee contended that a significant portion of the received amounts was paid as bribes and thus not taxable income. However, the assessee failed to provide evidence supporting this claim, leading to the entire amount being assessed as income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the lack of proof of bribe payments. The Tribunal also dismissed the plea of illegal acts being a basis for reducing taxable income, as it goes against public policy. The High Court concurred with the lower authorities, highlighting the assessee's failure to substantiate claims and disclose recipients of alleged bribe payments.

The High Court noted that the assessee admitted receiving substantial amounts from the Animal Husbandry Department during the relevant years for business purposes. Despite claiming that a significant portion was paid as bribes, the assessee could not provide evidence or identify recipients of these alleged payments. Attempts to link the case to a broader scandal in the state were deemed insufficient to support the claim of non-taxable income. The court emphasized that without specific evidence, such claims cannot be accepted. The assessee's plea of inadequate opportunity to present evidence was rejected, as the assessee failed to disclose crucial details even when provided with a chance. The court dismissed the appeals, stating that no substantial question of law arose based on the findings of fact by the authorities and the Tribunal, which were not effectively challenged.

In a concurring opinion, Justice R.K. Merathia agreed with the decision of the court. The judgment underscores the importance of substantiating claims with concrete evidence in tax matters and highlights the consequences of failing to do so. The case serves as a reminder of the burden of proof on taxpayers to support their assertions regarding income and expenditures, especially in cases involving contentious issues such as bribe payments and illegal acts impacting tax liability.