1973 (5) TMI 31 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Constitution by the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c):
The petitioner argued that the Explanation appended to sub-section (1) of section 271, which became operative on April 1, 1964, does not apply to the return in question as it relates to the year ending March 31, 1964. The court, however, found that the Explanation applies to any return filed after it came into force, regardless of the period to which the income relates. The court stated, "On its plain wording, the explanation applies to the income returned by an assessee after it came into force irrespective of the fact whether the income related to a period prior to April 1, 1964, or thereafter." Therefore, the penalty clause (c) can be invoked for any false return filed after the Explanation's effective date.

2. Alleged Violation of Article 14:
The petitioner contended that the Explanation offends Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. The court examined whether the Explanation creates a classification that is rational and whether this classification has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved.

The court acknowledged that the Explanation does create two classes of assessees: those whose returned income is less than 80% of the assessed income and those whose returned income is not less than 80% of the assessed income. The court stated, "Equality before the law means that among equals the law should be identical and that the like should be treated alike."

The court determined that the classification is based on "intelligible differentia" and has a rational nexus to the object of the Explanation, which is to provide effective checks against income-tax evasion. The court noted, "The permissible classification must satisfy two conditions, namely, (1) it must be founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others who are left out of the group, and (2) the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the impugned provision."

The court further elaborated that the Explanation aims to place the burden of proof on the assessee where the difference between returned and actual income is more than 20%. This presumption of concealment or inaccuracy is rebuttable, allowing the assessee to prove otherwise. The court found that this classification and the shifting of the burden of proof are justified and do not violate Article 14.

The court also referenced a decision by the Allahabad High Court in Saeed Ahmad v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, which supported the view that the Explanation is a rule of evidence and does not violate Article 14. The court stated, "The class of persons to whom the Explanation applies is a rational classification and has nexus with the object intended to be achieved, namely, of discouraging the concealment of the particulars of one's income during the course of assessment."

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) and finding no violation of Article 14. The court stated, "In the result, this writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs."

Separate Judgment:
BAHARUL ISLAM J. concurred with the judgment delivered, stating, "I agree."

Summary:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the imposition of a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court held that the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c), which became effective on April 1, 1964, applies to any return filed after that date, irrespective of the period to which the income relates. The court also found that the Explanation does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution, as the classification it creates is based on intelligible differentia and has a rational relation to the object of preventing income-tax evasion. The petition was dismissed with costs, and the rule issued by the court was discharged.