1992 (11) TMI 36 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Concealment of income by the assessee.
2. Jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to invoke the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) without the Income-tax Officer's initial satisfaction.

Summary:

Issue 1: Concealment of Income by the Assessee

In the assessment year 1967-68, the Income-tax Officer (ITO) recorded his satisfaction that the assessee had concealed income amounting to Rs. 2,14,510, which included income of wife, loan from Madhusudan Gordhandas and Co., interest paid to Madhusudan Gordhandas, and jewellery. The ITO referred the proceedings to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) u/s 274(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The IAC issued a notice u/s 274(2) read with section 271, and ultimately held that the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) was attracted, imposing a penalty of Rs. 65,000.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty in respect of the income of the wife was not justified. It also found no material on record for imposing penalty regarding the loan, interest, and jewellery. The Tribunal concluded that the ITO had not recorded his satisfaction that there was any concealment within the meaning of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c), and hence the IAC exceeded his jurisdiction in invoking the Explanation.

Legal Provisions and Interpretation

Section 271(1)(c) requires the ITO or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to record satisfaction that the assessee has concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. The Explanation to section 271(1)(c) introduces a legal fiction, deeming concealment if the returned income is less than 80% of the assessed income, unless the assessee proves the failure was not due to fraud or gross/wilful neglect. The Supreme Court in CIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose highlighted that the Explanation shifts the burden of proof to the assessee.

Tribunal's Conclusion

The Tribunal found that the IAC was not competent to invoke the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) as the ITO had not initiated penalty proceedings under the Explanation. The Tribunal's decision was supported by the Gujarat High Court's ruling in CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji, which held that penalty proceedings initiated on one basis cannot be concluded on a different basis without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Final Judgment

The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the IAC was not competent to levy penalty under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) without the ITO's initial satisfaction. The question referred was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs.