1980 (5) TMI 67 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealed income

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Imposition of Penalty by IAC
The appeal was against the IAC's order imposing a penalty of Rs. 33,000 on the assessee under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1970-71. The ITO found that the assessee had mortgaged his house and later redeemed it through his wife. The ITO added back the amount towards the total income of the assessee and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c).

Issue 2: Tribunal's Decision
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 33,000 out of the total addition made by the ITO. Subsequently, the IAC took up the penalty proceedings referred by the ITO under section 271(2) of the IT Act.

Issue 3: Assessee's Contention
The assessee contended before the IAC that the house belonged to his wife, and the addition made in his hands cannot be deemed as concealed income. He argued that the burden of proof for concealment lies with the Department and that the IAC lacked jurisdiction to levy the penalty.

Issue 4: IAC's Decision
The IAC rejected the assessee's contentions and relied on the statement of the wife, recorded by the ITO, where she mentioned that the amount was given by her husband. The IAC concluded that the penalty was justified under section 271(1)(c) and its explanation.

Issue 5: Appellate Tribunal's Decision
The Appellate Tribunal considered the facts and held that the mere non-acceptance of the assessee's explanation does not warrant a penalty under section 271(1)(c). Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof to establish concealment lies with the Department. As the Department failed to provide conclusive evidence that the amount represented concealed income of the assessee, the Tribunal canceled the penalty of Rs. 33,000 imposed by the IAC.

Conclusion
The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee, and canceled the penalty imposed by the IAC. The Tribunal highlighted that the Department did not meet the burden of proof required to levy a penalty under section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income.