1991 (1) TMI 12 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 2,32,750 by the Appellate Tribunal.
2. Tribunal's finding on the nature of credits in the names of the Bombay parties.
3. Cancellation of penalty of Rs. 35,000 under section 271(1)(c).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 2,32,750 by the Appellate Tribunal:
The first issue pertains to whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,32,750 made by the Income-tax Officer (ITO) for the assessment year 1966-67. The ITO noted credits in the accounts of certain Bombay parties and concluded that these amounts could not be regarded as balances held by the assessee for and on behalf of the Bombay parties. The ITO considered several factors, including the oral agreement, the placing of necessary funds by the Bombay parties, and the non-claim of the amounts by the Bombay parties, to conclude that the amounts represented the assessee's income. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the addition, noting the oral agreement and the admitted sale of import licenses by the assessee. However, the Tribunal deleted the addition, considering the credits as liabilities to be accounted for by the assessee. The High Court found that there was no material to support the Tribunal's findings and concluded that the remittances represented profits. Therefore, the High Court answered the first question in the negative, in favor of the Revenue.

2. Tribunal's Finding on the Nature of Credits in the Names of the Bombay Parties:
The second issue involves whether the Tribunal's finding that the credits in the names of the Bombay parties are only liabilities to be accounted for by the assessee is based on valid and relevant materials. The Tribunal had concluded that the credits were liabilities, attributing the lack of response from the Bombay parties to their preoccupation with other matters. The High Court disagreed, stating that the inaction of the Bombay parties indicated that they did not consider themselves entitled to the amounts. The High Court emphasized that the onus was on the assessee to prove that the amounts were not profits, given the oral agreement's terms. The High Court found that the Tribunal's reasoning was not supported by the available materials and concluded that the amounts represented profits. Thus, the High Court answered the second question in the negative, in favor of the Revenue.

3. Cancellation of Penalty of Rs. 35,000 under Section 271(1)(c):
The third issue concerns whether the Tribunal was right in canceling the penalty of Rs. 35,000 levied under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1966-67. The Tribunal had deleted the penalty based on its finding that Rs. 2,32,750 was not the income of the assessee. However, the High Court, in light of its answers to the first and second questions, concluded that the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) would apply. The High Court noted the difference between the assessed income and the returned income and the assessee's failure to offer any explanation. Consequently, the High Court found that the case was fit for the levy of penalty and answered the question in the negative, in favor of the Revenue.

Conclusion:
The High Court answered all the questions in favor of the Revenue, concluding that the Tribunal's deletion of the addition and cancellation of the penalty were not justified based on the available materials and the facts of the case. The Revenue was entitled to its costs, with counsel's fee set at Rs. 500 for one set.