9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The validity of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1970-71. Summary: The case involved a reference u/s 256(2) of the Income-tax Act regarding the levy of a penalty of Rs. 37,000 u/s 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1970-71. The assessee, a dealer in cement and fertilizer, had advanced Rs. 37,000 to another individual, claiming it was his mother-in-law's money. The Income-tax Officer included this amount in the assessee's income, leading to penalty proceedings. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the addition but deleted the interest amount. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed the penalty, which was challenged before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the penalty, finding no fraud or wilful neglect by the assessee. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in accepting the assessee's explanation without supporting material. However, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the assessee's statement alone could be sufficient to discharge the burden of proof. The court emphasized that each case must be considered on its own merits, and in this instance, the Tribunal's decision was final and legally sound. The court concluded that the burden of proof was properly discharged, and no violation of the law occurred. The court clarified that the burden of proof lies on the assessee to show that concealment was not due to fraud or wilful neglect. While the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) creates presumptions against the assessee, the method of discharging this burden can vary. In this case, the court found the assessee's statement acceptable to the Tribunal, which is the final authority on facts. The court affirmed that the law was not violated in this instance, and the burden of proof was adequately discharged. Consequently, the court answered the referred question in the affirmative, ruling against the Revenue.
|
