9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether there was any material or evidence before the Tribunal to justify that the sum of Rs. 55,971 represented concealed income of the appellant-firm and whether the order of the Tribunal is otherwise unreasonable and perverse? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applied in this case and that the assessee failed to discharge the onus that lay upon it under the said Explanation? Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Material or Evidence for Concealed Income The assessee, a registered partnership firm, filed its return for the assessment year 1972-73, declaring an income of Rs. 25,450. During assessment, the Income-tax Officer (ITO) found credits of Rs. 56,735.50 in each partner's account. The assessee claimed this sum was introduced per a settlement with the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 271(4A), which allowed the introduction of 50% of the disclosed amount or an amount equivalent to tax and penalty liabilities, whichever was higher. The ITO, however, concluded that only Rs. 57,500 could be introduced, adding the balance of Rs. 57,500 as undisclosed income. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleted this addition, but the Tribunal restored it, agreeing with the ITO's interpretation of the settlement terms. The Tribunal found no ambiguity in the settlement terms and reversed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision, asserting that the assessee wrongfully introduced Rs. 1,13,471, thus concealing Rs. 55,971. Issue 2: Application of Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) The ITO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), resulting in a penalty of Rs. 55,971. The Tribunal upheld this penalty, leading to the current reference under section 256(2). The assessee argued that there was no willful breach of law and that two interpretations of the settlement were possible, thus no penalty should be levied. The Revenue countered that the returned income was less than 80% of the assessed income, invoking the Explanation to section 271(1)(c), which the assessee failed to rebut. The Tribunal found that the assessee introduced Rs. 1,13,471 contrary to the settlement terms, representing undisclosed income, and failed to prove the absence of willful neglect. The Tribunal's decision was supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose, which held that if the returned income is less than 80% of the assessed income, a presumption of concealment arises, rebuttable by cogent evidence. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the Tribunal had sufficient evidence to justify that Rs. 55,971 was concealed income and that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c). The decisions cited by the assessee were found inapplicable. Thus, Question No. 1 was answered in the negative and in favor of the Revenue, and Question No. 2 was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue. There was no order as to costs.
|
