2001 (7) TMI 81 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Invocation of Explanation to section 271(1)(c) and its applicability in relation to section 145 of the Act.

Summary:

Issue 1: Justification of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c)
The Tribunal confirmed the levy of penalty of Rs. 10,400 imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee's return showed an income of Rs. 27,213, but the assessment was framed on a total income of Rs. 60,214, including additions for concealed capital and probable profit. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner partly allowed the appeal, reducing the addition to Rs. 10,400. The Tribunal upheld this order, and the Income-tax Officer levied the penalty, invoking the Explanation to section 271(1)(c), stating the assessee failed to prove the failure to return correct income was not due to fraud or wilful negligence. The Tribunal noted a more than 20% difference between returned and assessed income, justifying the penalty under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c).

Issue 2: Invocation of Explanation to Section 271(1)(c)
The Tribunal distinguished the current year's facts from the previous year, where penalty was canceled. The Tribunal held that the clandestine activity of purchase and sale of groundnut oil was established, and the assessee's explanation was not accepted. The Tribunal's order for the preceding year, where penalty was deleted, was confirmed by the High Court. The Revenue argued that the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) raised a statutory presumption of concealment if the difference between returned and assessed income exceeded 20%, which the assessee failed to rebut.

Court's Analysis and Decision:
The court held that the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) raises a rebuttable presumption against the assessee if the returned income is less than 80% of the assessed income. The onus shifts to the assessee to prove the failure to return correct income was not due to fraud or wilful neglect. The court found that the Income-tax Officer made multiple estimates from the seized material, which could not conclusively prove fraud or gross neglect by the assessee. The court emphasized that the seized material should be read as a whole and not selectively. The court concluded that the assessee had rebutted the presumption under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) by pointing to the assessment record, and thus, the penalty was not sustainable.

Conclusion:
The court answered the first question in the negative, in favor of the assessee, and against the Revenue. The second question was not pressed by the assessee's counsel and thus was not answered. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.