1970 (3) TMI 10 - HC - Income Tax

Income from undisclosed sources - Imposition of penalty u/s 28(1)(c), Indian Income Tax Act, 1922

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 on the assessee.
2. Burden of proof on the department in penalty proceedings.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh involved a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, regarding the imposition of a penalty on the assessee under section 28(1)(c) of the Act. The case revolved around the assessee, an individual, who had undisclosed possession of gold, leading to reassessment by the Income-tax Officer. The reassessment was upheld through appeals, following which penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee under section 28(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but set aside by the Tribunal, questioning the basis for the department's case.

The Tribunal's order was scrutinized, emphasizing the burden of proof in penalty matters. The High Court referred to various precedents, including decisions by different High Courts, to determine the onus of proof in penalty proceedings. The court highlighted that the burden lies on the department to prove concealment of income, as established in previous judgments. The court also emphasized the distinction between tax assessment and penalty, stating that penalty requires proof of "concealment" or "deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars," indicating a specific intent or guilty mind on the part of the assessee.

The court further elaborated on the legislative intent behind section 28(1)(c) of the Act, emphasizing the requirement of establishing "mens rea" or a guilty mind for imposing a penalty. It was clarified that mere inability to explain certain receipts does not automatically warrant a penalty unless there is evidence of concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The court concluded that in the absence of sufficient proof of intent to conceal income, the imposition of a penalty on the assessee was not justified under section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.

Ultimately, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the income-tax authorities were not justified in imposing a penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Act. The court directed the Commissioner to bear the costs of the reference, including counsel's fee.