1982 (4) TMI 62 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are whether the assessee could be said to have discharged its onus under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income tax under section 271(1)(c) read with the Explanation thereto.

Issue 1: Discharge of onus under Explanation to section 271(1)(c):
The assessee, who ran a cold storage and ice factory, filed a return declaring a loss, which was considered a duplicate return by the Income Tax Officer (ITO). The ITO made an ex parte assessment as the assessee did not appear before him, resulting in a total income assessment. The ITO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) due to the income returned falling short of the income assessed. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) levied a penalty of Rs. 60,000 on the assessee for concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Appellate Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's conduct was not above board, found no specific finding of concealment under section 271(1)(c) and deleted the penalty based on the estimate of income and the lack of adverse comments during assessment. The Tribunal considered the onus on the assessee under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) and the rule of preponderance of probability, leading to the deletion of the penalty.

Issue 2: Justification for deleting the penalty:
The Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty was based on the absence of specific concealment findings during assessment, the scope for error in good faith in the income estimate, and the lack of conscious concealment of income. However, the High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's reasoning, emphasizing that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) by not justifying the return of income based on regular accounts. The Court highlighted that deliberate concealment is not required for penalty imposition, and the onus is on the assessee to prove the absence of fraud, gross, or wilful neglect. The Court concluded that there was no material justifying the deletion of the penalty.

Conclusion:
The High Court answered both questions in the negative, in favor of the department and against the assessee. The Court directed the parties to bear their own costs and suggested that the assessee could raise further arguments regarding tax payable and penalty imposition before the Appellate Tribunal in subsequent proceedings.