1982 (4) TMI 64 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved: The issues involved in this case are whether the assessee had discharged the onus under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and whether the Tribunal was justified in cancelling penalties imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69, and 1969-70.

Issue 1: Discharge of onus under Explanation to section 271(1)(c): The respondent-assessee, an individual and non-resident, had not filed income tax returns for the relevant assessment years. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) treated certain bank deposits as the assessee's undisclosed income from an undisclosed source. The penalties imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner were challenged before the Tribunal.

Issue 1 Details: The Tribunal considered that under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c), the onus was on the assessee to prove that the failure to report the correct income was not due to fraud or neglect. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to produce necessary evidence, and the findings in the assessment proceedings were against him. Despite the quasi-criminal nature of penalty proceedings, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty orders without the assessee providing new evidence or circumstances.

Issue 2: Cancellation of penalties by the Tribunal: The Tribunal, after considering the circumstances and lack of evidence produced by the assessee, cancelled the penalty orders imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.

Issue 2 Details: The Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalties was based on the inability of the assessee to produce certain individuals and the lack of conclusive evidence. However, the High Court found the Tribunal's decision to be legally erroneous. The High Court emphasized that the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) creates a rebuttable presumption of concealment of income, which the assessee must disprove. In this case, the assessee failed to discharge this onus, and the Tribunal erred in cancelling the penalties without proper evidence or new circumstances presented by the assessee.

In conclusion, the High Court ruled against the assessee, stating that the Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalties was legally incorrect. The High Court emphasized the importance of the assessee discharging the onus under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) and providing evidence to refute the presumption of concealment of income.