9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in canceling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the assessee discharged its burden of proof. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Cancellation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) The Tribunal was directed to refer the questions by the court in pursuance of its order dated March 4, 1988, in Original Petition No. 1303 of 1984. The assessment year in question is 1974-75. The assessee, Santhosh Textiles, Cannanore, filed a return on September 30, 1974, showing a total income of Rs. 80,780. During examination, the Income-tax Officer noticed an unaccounted item of sale of Rs. 70,642 on January 1, 1974, which was not included in the total accounts. This led to proceedings requiring the assessee to submit an explanation, resulting in the impounding of the books of account. The assessee explained that the accountant, Sri Sahadevan, who managed the accounts, had suddenly left for Bombay. This explanation was supported by a letter dated December 15, 1974, from the accountant to the managing partner. The scrutiny revealed discrepancies in 44 items, leading to a revised return filed on March 19, 1975, showing a total income of Rs. 1,13,589. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment on March 31, 1975, with a total income of Rs. 1,14,290 and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee argued before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner that no fraud or gross neglect occurred, attributing the mistakes to the accountant's inadvertence. The Commissioner, however, found it implausible that the partners were unaware of the real profits and concluded that the discrepancies indicated an attempt to reduce tax liability. Despite acknowledging mitigating circumstances, the Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 75,000. The Tribunal, however, considered the situation to be a bona fide omission in totalling in the sales ledger. It noted that the discrepancies included both excess debits and credits, indicating no deliberate manipulation. The Tribunal also considered the accountant's distressed state and his sudden departure as factors supporting the assessee's claim of inadvertence. The Tribunal concluded that the omissions were not part of a scheme to conceal income but were due to oversight. Issue 2: Discharge of Burden of Proof The Department argued that the revised return constituted an admission of concealment of income, supported by precedents from the Punjab and Haryana High Court and this court. They contended that the revised return, filed after the Income-tax Officer's inquiries, could not be considered voluntary under section 139(5) of the Act. The Tribunal, however, found that the material on record did not indicate conscious concealment. It noted that the mistakes were promptly addressed by the assessee, who entrusted the matter to auditors and filed the revised return. The Tribunal also considered the criminal court's judgment in Criminal Case No. 144 of 1979, which discharged one partner and abated the prosecution against the other, supporting the conclusion that the mistakes were bona fide. The Tribunal's findings were based on a detailed examination of the material, concluding that the situation was one of inadvertence. The court agreed with the Tribunal's decision, noting that the discharge of burden is a factual situation and no question of law arises. The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, answering both questions in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee. Conclusion: Both questions were answered in the affirmative, supporting the Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty and recognizing that the assessee had discharged its burden of proof. The court directed that a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
|
