2003 (7) TMI 37 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty concealment of income burden of proof - Tribunal has considered the facts of the case and it observed that the omission to include the two amounts in the return was bona fide. However, the Tribunal has considered the matter in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and of this court mentioned in the order itself. It is an admitted position that those principles are no more good law in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court and of this court relied on by senior counsel for the Revenue in support of his contentions regarding the burden - Tribunal was not justified in casting the burden of proof on Revenue in respect of concealment of income - matter must be remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Consideration of whether the assessee concealed income or made a bona fide mistake.
3. Burden of proof on the Revenue in penalty proceedings.
4. Justification for admitting a cross objection beyond the prescribed time.

Issue 1: Interpretation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The appeal raised questions regarding the conscious concealment of income by the assessee for the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal's approach was questioned based on Supreme Court decisions, challenging the Tribunal's conclusion as vitiated and against the law.

Issue 2: Consideration of whether the assessee concealed income or made a bona fide mistake:
The case involved the assessee offering Rs. 1,68,748 for assessment, which the Assessing Officer added to the income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the assessee concealed income and directed the imposition of a minimum penalty. However, the Tribunal found that the omission was a bona fide mistake and that the assessee voluntarily offered the amount for assessment before detection.

Issue 3: Burden of proof on the Revenue in penalty proceedings:
The senior counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal wrongly placed the burden on the Revenue to establish the exigibility of penalty under section 271(1)(c). The counsel relied on various decisions to support the argument that the Tribunal's decision was erroneous and should be reconsidered in light of established legal principles.

Issue 4: Justification for admitting a cross objection beyond the prescribed time:
The Tribunal entertained a cross objection filed by the assessee beyond the prescribed time, leading to questions about the justification for such admission. The senior counsel for the Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in condoning the delay without affording an opportunity to the Revenue to rebut the submission. The Tribunal's decision was challenged based on precedents and legal principles.

In conclusion, the High Court remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Court noted that the Tribunal's decision was based on principles no longer valid due to subsequent Supreme Court decisions. The Court declined to answer questions regarding the imposition of penalty and focused solely on the levy of penalty on the alleged concealed income of Rs. 1,68,748. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.