1967 (7) TMI 58 - HC - Income Tax

Whether the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the penalty levied u/s 28(1)(c) - finding of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars cannot be founded merely on the fact that a certain explanation in regard to credits in the account has been offered by an assessee, which the revenue is not prepared to accept - hence question is answered in affirmitive in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues: Assessment of undisclosed income, levy of penalty under section 28(1)(c), burden of proof on revenue, interpretation of concealment of income under section 28(1)(c).

Analysis:
The High Court of Madras was tasked with deciding whether the penalty levied under section 28(1)(c) was justified in a case involving the assessment of undisclosed income for the assessment year 1958-59. The assessee, a partnership firm in Madras, received credit entries from businessmen from North India but failed to provide their addresses, leading the Income-tax Officer to add the sum as undisclosed income and impose a penalty of Rs. 4,800. The Tribunal disagreed with the revenue, stating that the penalty was not justified, which led to the reference to the High Court. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden was on the revenue to establish that the deposits constituted income of the relevant year, which it failed to discharge.

The court rejected the broad proposition that disbelieving the assessee's explanation automatically constituted concealment of income under section 28(1)(c). It clarified that the essence of the offense is concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. While adding income based on unexplained credit entries may be justified for assessment purposes, it does not necessarily prove concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The court cited a similar case to support the distinction between false explanations and concealment of income, emphasizing the need for additional evidence to establish the offense under section 28(1)(c).

The court addressed the issue of burden of proof, stating that the department must initially establish the offense with proper material due to the penal nature of section 28(1)(c). While acknowledging the Income-tax Officer's unique position, the court emphasized that the onus does not automatically shift to the assessee under this provision. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, concluding that the penalty imposed on the assessee was not justified based on a proper legal approach to the evidence. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, highlighting that no costs were to be awarded in this matter.