9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Concealment of Income 2. Application of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) 3. Bona Fide Explanation and Rebuttable Presumption 4. Specific Addition vs. Substitution of Income Summary: 1. Concealment of Income: The primary issue was whether the concealment of income by the assessee could be taken at Rs. 28,520 within the meaning of clause (c) of Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, and consequently, whether the minimum amount of penalty to be levied would be Rs. 19,629. The assessee, a building contractor assessed as a registered firm, had discrepancies in their accounts leading to an agreed gross profit rate of 12% on contract receipts, resulting in an assessable income of Rs. 1,27,680. 2. Application of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c): The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) based on the presumption that the additions made represented concealed income. This was affirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal, which held that Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c), as amended from April 1, 1976, applied to the case. 3. Bona Fide Explanation and Rebuttable Presumption: The court noted that Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) provides a rule of evidence for raising a rebuttable presumption in favor of the Revenue. However, this presumption is not conclusive proof and can be rebutted by new or existing material. The court found that the assessee's inability to substantiate certain expenses due to lack of verifying material did not necessarily indicate a lack of bona fides. The court emphasized that no deliberate false entry was found in the books of account. 4. Specific Addition vs. Substitution of Income: The court highlighted that the penalty proceedings were initiated based on the addition of income by applying a gross profit rate, not by disallowing specific expenses. The court clarified that the language of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) refers to specific amounts added or disallowed, not to the substitution of an estimated sum for the income returned. The court concluded that the Tribunal misdirected itself by treating the case as one of specific addition rather than substitution. Conclusion: The court answered the question in the negative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, stating that the penalty proceedings were not justified based on the facts and circumstances of the case. There was no order as to costs.
|
