1982 (4) TMI 66 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are:
1. Whether the assessee concealed income for unexplained investments in property?
2. Whether the penalty imposed on the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified?

Issue 1:
The assessee, a HUF engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Boora and Batasa, disclosed income for the assessment year 1967-68. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) found discrepancies in the cost of construction of four flats and the purchase of two shops, adding these amounts to the assessee's income as undisclosed sources. The ITO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) due to the significant difference between the returned and assessed income.

Issue 2:
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', considered the case and observed that the additions were made due to the assessee's inability to explain the sources of expenditure for the flats and the ownership of the shops. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC) and concluded that penalty cannot be levied solely based on additions made during assessment. The Tribunal held that the imposition of penalty was misconceived and vacated the penalty order.

The High Court analyzed the Tribunal's decision and found that it failed to consider the effect of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Explanation introduced a material change, shifting the burden of proof to the assessee if the returned income is less than the assessed income. The Court emphasized that penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings and the department must establish concealment or inaccurate particulars. The Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the case in light of the Explanation and observations made, returning the questions unanswered.

In conclusion, the High Court highlighted the importance of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) in penalty proceedings and directed the Tribunal to reevaluate the case considering the burden of proof and evidence presented.