1974 (8) TMI 19 - HC - Income Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal erred in law by relying on the disclosure made by the assessee under section 24(11) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965, in holding that the assessee committed gross or wilful neglect within the meaning of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Facts:
The assessee filed a return of income for the year 1964-65 on March 6, 1965, declaring a total income of Rs. 39,730. Before the assessment order was passed, the assessee filed a disclosure-petition on March 25, 1965, under section 24(11) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965, disclosing Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 50,000 as accommodating hundies used in the business for the years 1963-64 and 1964-65, respectively. The Income-tax Officer assessed the total income as Rs. 53,591, adding Rs. 10,231 as interest on bogus hundi loans and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000, stating that the failure to file a revised return amounted to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, leading to the reference to the High Court.

2. Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal had divided opinions:
- Accountant Member: Confirmed the penalty, stating there was an attempt at concealment by claiming debits known to be non-genuine. He found that the failure to return correct profit arose from gross or wilful neglect.
- Judicial Member: Did not record a finding on concealment but agreed that gross or wilful neglect was present due to the admission in the disclosure-petition.

3. Legal Provisions and Arguments:
- Section 24(11) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965: Prohibits the use of any declaration made under this section as evidence against the declarant for penalty purposes.
- Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: Deems concealment if the returned income is less than 80% of the assessed income unless the assessee proves the failure was not due to fraud or gross/wilful neglect.

4. Court's Analysis:
- Prohibition under Section 24(11): The court noted that the prohibition applies only to amounts specified in an order made by the Commissioner under sub-section (4) or altered by the Board under sub-section (6). The Tribunal considered the declaration to determine the genuineness of the interest claim, not for the prohibited purpose.
- Background Correspondence: The court found that the assessee opted for the disclosure scheme under section 24 after the Income-tax Officer did not agree to the proposed spread-over of four years. The Tribunal was justified in relying on the declaration for determining gross or wilful neglect.
- Tribunal's Reasoning: The court held that the Tribunal did not base the penalty on a new ground but justified it on slightly different reasoning. The Tribunal relied on the declaration to find that the failure to return correct income was due to gross neglect.

5. Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Tribunal was correct in relying on the disclosure made by the assessee for holding that the assessee committed gross or wilful neglect within the meaning of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c). The prohibition under section 24(11) did not apply to the Tribunal's consideration of the declaration for this purpose.

Final Judgment:
The reference is answered in the negative and against the assessee. The Tribunal was right in relying on the disclosure to hold that the assessee committed gross or wilful neglect. The assessee is to pay costs to the Commissioner.

← Previous Next →