1979 (2) TMI 90 - HC - Income Tax

Burden Of Proof, Contract Business, Question Of Fact, Question Of Law, Reference To High Court

Summary

Issues:
Application under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act for direction to Tribunal to state a case and refer a question of law for opinion of the court. Assessment year 1972-73. Discharge of burden of proof by the assessee under Explanation to section 271(1)(c) for penalty deletion.

Analysis:
The revenue filed an application under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act seeking a direction to the Appellate Tribunal to state a case for the court's opinion. The issue revolved around whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) on the assessee, a registered firm engaged in contract business during the relevant assessment year. The assessee had claimed deductions for payments to sub-contractors, but failed to prove the existence of such sub-contractors during the assessment proceedings. The penalty was levied by the IAC, but subsequently deleted by the Tribunal.

In the second appeal, the Tribunal examined the facts and circumstances of the case. It noted that the assessee's claim regarding payments to sub-contractors was not entirely improbable. The Tribunal considered evidence such as physical payments made to sub-contractors via cheques, some of which were account payee cheques. Additionally, it was revealed that one sub-contractor had been separately assessed by the department in previous and subsequent years. The Tribunal emphasized that in penalty proceedings, the assessee is entitled to a fresh look at the evidence on record. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee had discharged the burden of proof under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) based on the totality of circumstances.

The Tribunal correctly placed the burden on the assessee to prove the claim of deductions and assessed whether this burden had been discharged. It is established in law that the determination of whether the burden of proof has been met in a particular case is a question of fact. Consequently, the Court held that no question of law arose in this instance, and the revenue's application under s. 256(2) was dismissed. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that the burden of proof lies with the assessee, and the decision to delete the penalty was based on a factual assessment of the evidence presented.