1996 (9) TMI 23 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee concealed any income or intended to furnish inaccurate particulars thereof u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Summary:

Issue 1: Concealment of Income or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars u/s 271(1)(c)

The High Court of Kerala was tasked with determining whether the assessee had concealed income or intended to furnish inaccurate particulars, thus making them liable for a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, running a textile business, filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 85,200 for the assessment year 1977-78. A search u/s 132(1) of the Act on January 12, 1977, revealed discrepancies in the closing stock inventory.

The assessee's trading account disclosed total sales of Rs. 1,05,32,644.81 and a closing stock of Rs. 10,36,384.75. However, the stock inventory seized showed a closing balance of Rs. 12,17,725, leading to a difference of Rs. 1,81,341. The assessee explained this difference as due to duplication and damaged goods. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) added Rs. 1,71,341 to the assessee's income, which was confirmed by the appellate authorities.

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated, and the ITO imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,20,000. However, the first appellate authority, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), cancelled the penalty, noting that the return was filed after the stock details were seized and that any discrepancies could not be treated as concealment. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the assessee did not conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars deliberately.

The High Court observed that the assessee had disclosed total sales and closing stock in the return and that the explanation for the difference was partly accepted by the Department. The Court noted that the explanation provided by the assessee was bona fide and that all necessary material for computing the total income was disclosed. The Court referred to Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c), which shifts the burden of proof to the assessee to prove that the explanation is bona fide and all facts were disclosed.

The Court concluded that the assessee's explanation was bona fide and that there was no justification for the penalty proceedings. The Court answered the question in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee, thereby supporting the orders of the appellate authorities.