2011 (1) TMI 366 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c)- Since, the assessee has sufficiently discharged the burden which lay upon it so as to substantiate and prove that the explanation offered by it is bonafide and that all facts relating to the same and material to the computation of its total income had been disclosed by it - In the circumstances, while disagreeing with the view adopted by the Tribunal that the fact that the explanation offered was not substantiated will have to be established by the Income Tax Department or that the revenue is required to controvert that the explanation offered by the assessee is false, having examined the case independently on merits as discussed ,the Court does not find any reason to interfere with the ultimate order passed by the Tribunal - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to order deleting penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Interpretation of Explanation (1) to section 271(1) and burden of proof on the assessee.
3. Treatment of reimbursed expenses as part of trading receipt and levy of penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c).

Issue 1: The appellant revenue challenged the order deleting penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of penalty, leading to the question of whether the Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty.

Issue 2: The interpretation of Explanation (1) to section 271(1) was a key aspect. The appellant argued that the onus is on the assessee to prove that the explanation offered is bonafide and that all material facts have been disclosed. The Tribunal's reasoning was criticized for placing the burden on the Income Tax Department to establish that the explanation offered by the assessee is false, contrary to statutory provisions.

Issue 3: The treatment of reimbursed expenses as part of the trading receipt was crucial. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the reimbursement received for expenses incurred on behalf of a customer cannot be considered income in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal concurred with these findings and observed that the Assessing Officer did not discuss how the assessee concealed income, especially when details of the expenditure were recorded in the books of accounts.

The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the expenses were not part of the trading receipt and that the assessee had made a bonafide claim. The Tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing that the explanation offered by the assessee was bonafide. The Court, after independent examination, found that the assessee had discharged the burden of proving the bonafide nature of the explanation and disclosing all material facts.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law warranted intervention. The judgment highlighted the importance of the burden of proof on the assessee regarding the bonafide nature of explanations and the disclosure of all material facts under section 271(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.