1984 (11) TMI 33 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee had concealed particulars of its income or furnished inaccurate particulars to justify imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that no penalty provisions are attracted and vacating the penalty order imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Summary:

Issue 1: Concealment of Income or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars
The Tribunal referred two questions to the High Court regarding the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, M. B. Engineering Works (P.) Ltd., was found by the Income-tax Officer to have a sum of Rs. 40,000 in cash credits representing income from undisclosed sources. The total income assessed was Rs. 91,647 against the returned income of Rs. 18,881. The Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings, and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 39,293. The Tribunal, however, concluded that the penalty provisions were not attracted, citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696. The Tribunal found that merely rejecting the assessee's version did not automatically indicate wilful neglect or fraud.

Issue 2: Justification of Tribunal's Decision
The Revenue argued that the Tribunal did not consider the findings of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner or the effect of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c). They cited cases from the Allahabad and Punjab & Haryana High Courts, which held that the Explanation reversed the burden of proof in cases where the returned income was less than 80% of the assessed income. The Tribunal, however, relied on the decision of this court in CIT v. Rupabani Theatres P. Ltd. [1981] 130 ITR 747, which held that the Explanation did not nullify the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Anwar Ali's case. The Tribunal noted that the penalty could not be imposed merely because certain deductions were disallowed or additions were made in the assessment. The Tribunal's finding that the assessee was not guilty of wilful neglect or fraud was not challenged.

Conclusion:
The High Court answered the first question in the negative and the second question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Tribunal's view that the penalty provisions were not attracted was upheld, and there was no order as to costs.