1972 (5) TMI 2 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty for under-valuation of stock - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the order of penalty passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(c) read with the Explanation thereto - assessee is not guilty of fraud or wilful neglect as per the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) because he was only adopting the same method of accounting as was done by the department therefore we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for under-valuation of closing stock.

Analysis:
The case involved a firm of two partners that took over the business of another firm engaged in processing and exporting prawns. The Income-tax Officer added a substantial amount to the value of the closing stock, alleging under-valuation. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The firm contended that the difference in closing stock valuation was due to the method adopted, which was consistent with the predecessor firm's practice and accepted by the department. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of two lakhs, which was challenged before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.

The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, found that the under-statement of income was not a result of fraud or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee. It noted that the firm had merely followed the valuation method of the predecessor firm, which was accepted by the department. The Tribunal canceled the penalty and directed the Income-tax Officer to refund the amount. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, which penalizes concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.

Section 271(1)(c) provides for penalties if a person conceals income particulars or furnishes inaccurate income particulars. The Explanation to the section states that if the total income returned is less than 80% of the correct income assessed, the burden of proof lies on the assessee to show that the discrepancy did not result from fraud or wilful neglect. In this case, the Tribunal found that the firm had discharged this burden by demonstrating that its valuation method was consistent with the predecessor firm's practices and department acceptance.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the firm's adoption of the same accounting method as the department precluded any finding of fraud or wilful neglect. The Court concurred with the Tribunal's reasoning that the circumstances, including the method's acceptance by the department, supported the conclusion that there was no intentional wrongdoing on the part of the assessee. Therefore, the Court answered the question in favor of the assessee, highlighting that the firm could not be deemed guilty of fraud or wilful neglect when following an accepted accounting practice.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of consistency in accounting practices and department acceptance in determining the absence of fraud or wilful neglect. The case serves as a reminder that adherence to established methods, even if later questioned, can be a valid defense against penalties for income discrepancies under the Income-tax Act, 1961.