9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Tribunal's Decision on Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) The central question referred to the court was whether the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a manufacturer of wooden electric boards and furniture, had filed a return showing an income of Rs. 29,508. Due to a low gross profit rate and unverifiable trading results, the Income-tax Officer (ITO) added to this account, resulting in a computed income of Rs. 80,586. This assessment was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. A penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) was initiated, and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,000, invoking the Explanation to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271. The Tribunal, however, set aside this penalty, concluding that the addition was based on estimates and flat gross profit rates, and there was no animus attributable to the assessee for invoking the penalty provision. Analysis of Legal Provisions and Precedents: The judgment delves into the evolution of the penalty provisions from the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 to the Income-tax Act, 1961. Initially, under section 28 of the 1922 Act, and later under section 271 of the 1961 Act, the law required proving that the assessee had "concealed the particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars." The court referred to several precedents, including Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gokuldas Harivallabhdas, where it was held that penalty proceedings are penal in nature and the burden of proof lies on the department. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anwar Ali reaffirmed that mere falsity of the assessee's explanation does not necessarily infer that the disputed amount represents income. The entirety of circumstances must point to conscious concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Effect of the 1964 Amendment: The Finance Act of 1964 amended section 271(1)(c) by deleting the word "deliberately" and adding an Explanation. This amendment shifted the burden onto the assessee to prove that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or gross or wilful neglect, if the returned income was less than 80% of the assessed income. The court emphasized that the omission of "deliberately" did not imply that mere inaccuracies warranted penalties; the element of fraud or gross or wilful neglect still needed to be established. Application of the Explanation: The court explained that if the case falls under the Explanation, the burden shifts to the assessee to prove the absence of fraud or gross or wilful neglect. If the assessee discharges this burden, no penalty can be imposed even if the difference between returned and assessed income exceeds 20%. The court cited various cases, including Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sankarsons and Company, which highlighted that the quantum of proof required is that of a civil case, i.e., preponderance of probability. Facts of the Case: In the present case, the ITO disallowed certain expenses and made additions based on estimates without finding any defects in the assessee's accounts. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had discharged the initial onus of proving there was no fraud or gross or wilful neglect. The court noted that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's reasons for imposing the penalty were not substantiated by the assessment order's findings. Conclusion: The court agreed with the Tribunal's decision, stating that the materials in the assessment order enabled the assessee to discharge its onus. The Tribunal correctly applied the law and concluded that the failure to return the correct income was not due to fraud or gross or wilful neglect. Therefore, the question was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the revenue, holding that the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Final Judgment: The question was answered in the affirmative, favoring the assessee, with no order as to costs of the reference. This summary preserves the legal terminology and significant phrases from the original text, providing a thorough and detailed analysis of the judgment.
|
