9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Is reasonable cause an ingredient of the offence for which the penalty is provided under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Who bears the burden of proof regarding the presence or absence of reasonable cause under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Detailed Analysis: 1. Is reasonable cause an ingredient of the offence for which the penalty is provided under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? The court examined whether the phrase "without reasonable cause" constitutes an ingredient of the offence under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The judgment emphasized that the penalty under this section is imposed for failure without reasonable cause to furnish the required return. The court referred to several precedents, including C.A. Abraham v. Income-tax Officer and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anwar Ali, to elucidate that penalty proceedings under the Income-tax Act are quasi-criminal in nature and intended as a deterrent against non-compliance. The court also discussed the distinction between penalties and prosecutions under different chapters of the Income-tax Act, noting that penalties are imposed in quasi-criminal proceedings while prosecutions involve criminal liability. The judgment highlighted the Supreme Court's stance in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, which stated that penalties should not be imposed unless there is deliberate defiance of law or contumacious conduct. Therefore, the court concluded that "reasonable cause" is indeed an ingredient of the offence under Section 271(1)(a). 2. Who bears the burden of proof regarding the presence or absence of reasonable cause under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? The court analyzed the burden of proof in penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(a). It referred to the principle that in all criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings, the prosecution must prove all the ingredients of the offence. The judgment cited Collector of Customs v. D. Bhoormull, which emphasized that the prosecution must establish a degree of probability that a prudent person would believe in the existence of the fact in issue. The court further discussed the application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which states that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. However, the initial burden of proof lies with the department to show prima facie that the assessee failed to furnish the return without reasonable cause. Once this initial burden is discharged, the burden shifts to the assessee to prove that there was reasonable cause for the failure. The judgment also referred to the Full Bench decisions of the Delhi High Court in Official Liquidator, Security & Finance P. Ltd. v. B. K. Bedi and the Kerala High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gujarat Travancore Agency, which supported the view that the burden of proof initially lies with the department. The court concluded that the department must lead some evidence to show prima facie that the failure was without reasonable cause, and then the assessee must establish reasonable cause on a balance of probabilities. Conclusion: 1. Reasonable cause is an ingredient of the offence for which the penalty is provided under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The legal burden is on the department to establish by leading some evidence that, prima facie, the assessee has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return within the specified time. Once this initial burden is discharged, it is for the assessee to show that there was reasonable cause for the failure on a balance of probabilities. 3. Mere falsity of the explanation furnished by the assessee cannot help the department in establishing its case against the assessee at the time of imposition of penalty. The matter will now go before the Division Bench for disposing of the case in accordance with law.
|
