9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and propriety of the cancellation of the penalty imposed on the assessee. Summary: Issue 1: Legality and Propriety of the Cancellation of Penalty The High Court of Patna was asked to opine on whether the cancellation of the penalty of Rs. 13,565 imposed on the assessee was legal and proper. The assessment year in question was 1964-65. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) had noticed cash credits amounting to Rs. 94,000 in the assessee's account books and, due to the lack of satisfactory explanation from the assessee, treated these as income from undisclosed sources. Consequently, the ITO initiated a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) and referred the matter to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) u/s 274(2). During the penalty proceedings, the assessee argued that the cash credits were not concealed income but were added due to non-acceptance of the explanation. The Tribunal, in the quantum appeal, had upheld the addition of Rs. 50,000 out of the Rs. 94,000 and disallowed the interest paid on these credits. The Tribunal found that the cash credits remained unexplained and thus upheld the addition. The Tribunal, while considering the penalty matter, observed that the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) could be displaced by the assessee by proving that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or gross or wilful neglect, with the quantum of proof required being that in a civil case, i.e., the preponderance of probabilities. The Tribunal relied on the decision in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC), stating that the burden was on the Department to establish that the receipt constituted income of the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that no penalty could be imposed for the cash credits which the assessee failed to prove as genuine, as these could not be said to be concealed income. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's application of the principles of law, noting that the Tribunal was correct in observing that the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) was applicable but the penalty could not be imposed merely based on the addition of cash credits. The Tribunal had correctly placed the initial onus on the assessee to prove the absence of fraud or gross or wilful neglect, which could be discharged by placing a probable case. The High Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's judgment and upheld the cancellation of the penalty, answering the question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The assessee was entitled to costs, with the hearing fee assessed at Rs. 250.
|
