1985 (1) TMI 29 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Penalty proceedings u/s 273 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the estimates filed by the assessee for advance tax.
3. The basis and justification for the estimates made by the assessee.
4. The Revenue's contention on the assessee's estimates being untrue.

Summary:

1. Penalty Proceedings u/s 273 of the I.T. Act, 1961:
The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1968-69, under section 273(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for allegedly furnishing false estimates of advance tax. The ITO imposed penalties as the income finally determined was more than the income estimated by the assessee.

2. Validity of the Estimates Filed by the Assessee for Advance Tax:
For the first year, the assessee filed multiple estimates, ultimately declaring an estimated income of Rs. 6.81 lakhs, while the income assessed was Rs. 10,01,752. For the second year, the estimate was Rs. 3,35,000, whereas the assessed income was Rs. 16,25,636. The ITO deemed these estimates untrue and initiated penalty proceedings.

3. The Basis and Justification for the Estimates Made by the Assessee:
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) deleted the penalties, holding that the estimates were based on the figures of immediately preceding years and the trend of the business. The AAC found that the substantial difference in income was due to profits from ginning and pressing factories, which were not predictable at the time of filing the estimates. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's view, noting that the assessee had a reasonable basis for the estimates and there was no mala fide intention.

4. The Revenue's Contention on the Assessee's Estimates Being Untrue:
The Revenue argued that the AAC accepted the assessee's statements blindly without primary evidence and that the assessee, being a part of a well-known industrial group, should have provided convincing evidence for its estimates. The Revenue relied on previous court decisions to support their claim that the estimates were untrue. However, the Tribunal found that the Revenue did not verify the assessee's claims or provide evidence that the assessee had the information to foresee the increased profits at the time of filing the estimates.

Conclusion:
The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the assessee's estimates were based on reasonable grounds and the Revenue failed to prove that the estimates were knowingly false. The court emphasized that the burden of proving the estimates to be untrue lies with the Revenue and mere disparity between estimated and assessed income does not justify the imposition of penalty u/s 273. The question was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs.