1994 (11) TMI 54 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the finding of the Tribunal regarding the cash credit of Rs. 50,000 and the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was based on material or perverse.

Analysis:
The High Court of Calcutta addressed the questions referred under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court examined whether the Tribunal's finding on the cash credit of Rs. 50,000 and the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was based on material or perverse. The Court stated that a finding is considered perverse when no reasonable person could arrive at the same conclusion. In this case, the Tribunal's finding was deemed just and proper after examining the facts. The Tribunal did not find any concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee, which was considered a finding of fact. The Court referred to the case of CIT v. K. R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49 (SC) and concluded that it was not applicable to the present case.

Moving on to the findings of the Tribunal, it was observed that the findings were based on the materials already on record and did not involve any legal points. The Tribunal assessed whether there was any concealment of income by the assessee justifying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal considered the explanation provided by the assessee during the assessment and penalty proceedings, along with the proviso to clause (B) of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that the presumption of concealment could not be drawn against the assessee as all facts relating to the deposit were disclosed. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to substantiate the explanation before the Departmental authorities, leading to the inability to draw a presumption of concealment. The Court emphasized that the question of concealment of income is a matter of fact settled by various court decisions, and the burden of proof was not placed on the Department by the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the Court answered Question No. 1 in the negative and in favor of the assessee, stating that the finding of the Tribunal was not perverse. Question No. 2 was answered in the affirmative and against the Department, indicating that the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was unjustified. The judgment was delivered by K. C. Agarwal C. J., with Mukul Gopal Mukherji J. concurring.