1971 (11) TMI 18 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty - Finding of fact - if, on the material before it, the Tribunal refused to draw the inference that there was concealment, its finding was purely one of fact on which no reference was permissible - Tribunal was quite justified in rejecting the application of the Commissioner for a reference under section 256(2), on the ground that whether there was concealment or not was a question of fact

Summary

Issues:
- Whether penalty can be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
- Whether concealment of income can be inferred based on the material on record.
- Whether positive evidence of concealment is necessary for penalty imposition.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking direction for the Appellate Tribunal to refer questions of law regarding the imposition of penalty. The case involved the assessment of a registered firm engaged in bidi manufacturing and sales for the year 1960-61. The Income-tax Officer rejected the books of account, estimated income, and disallowed certain expenses, leading to penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for claiming personal expenses as business expenses and interest on alleged bogus hundies.

The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty, which was challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the penalty, emphasizing the lack of positive evidence by the department to establish concealment of income. The Tribunal noted that the department had only assumed inaccuracies without concrete proof. The judgment referenced precedents like Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gokuldas Harivallabhdas, C. A. Abraham v. Income-tax Officer, and Lal Chand Gopal Das v. Commissioner of Income-tax to discuss the nature of penalty proceedings and the burden of proof on the department.

The Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anwar Ali was cited to clarify the penal nature of penalty proceedings and the burden on the department to prove concealment. The judgment highlighted the distinction between tax and penalty, emphasizing the penal consequences of section 28 and the need for deterrence against defaults. It further discussed the evidentiary requirements for establishing concealed income in penalty proceedings, emphasizing the department's burden to prove revenue receipts.

Regarding the refusal to refer the case, the judgment cited Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kotrika Venkataswamy and Sons, where the Supreme Court held that if the Tribunal's finding on concealment is based on the material before it, it constitutes a factual determination not subject to reference. In this case, the Tribunal's conclusion that no concealment was proven was deemed a factual finding, justifying the rejection of the application for a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act.

Ultimately, the judgment dismissed the application, upholding the Tribunal's decision and emphasizing the factual nature of the finding on concealment. The Commissioner's request for a reference was denied, concluding the legal proceedings with costs awarded.