9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Assessment of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on alleged fraud or wilful or gross negligence in furnishing income particulars for the assessment year 1967-68.
Summary: The assessee, owning a truck in partnership, filed a return disclosing income of Rs. 4,000, but the Income Tax Officer (ITO) added Rs. 13,000 as income from undisclosed sources due to unconvincing explanations regarding a truck purchase. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) found the explanation not entirely unreasonable and insufficient to prove fraud or negligence, emphasizing the need for deliberate defiance of law for penalty imposition. The Tribunal highlighted the non-retrospective nature of the amendment to section 271(1)(c) effective from April 1, 1968, removing the requirement to prove deliberate actions by the assessee. It noted the burden of proof reversal under the Explanation, placing the onus on the assessee to show no fraud or negligence in underreporting income, which was not adequately addressed in the Tribunal's judgment. Given the lack of detailed findings by the Tribunal and failure to discuss the IAC's concrete findings, the High Court directed a rehearing of the appeal for a proper decision in line with legal principles, citing precedents where rehearing was deemed necessary for justice. The Court returned the question unanswered, instructing the Tribunal to reconsider the case with due regard to the legal observations provided. In conclusion, the High Court emphasized the importance of thorough examination and proper application of legal provisions in assessing penalties for income tax violations, ensuring fairness and adherence to established legal standards.
|
