9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (11) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome the income of the wife of the assessee amounting to Rs. 3,418 in the assessment year 1962-63 and Rs. 4,687 in the assessment year 1963-64 in the return submitted, as the assessee had not shown the aforesaid income of the wife in the returns submitted by him for the two assessment years. The assessments of both the years were confirmed by the AAC on appeal by a common order dated March 31, 1967. While making the assessment for two years, the ITO, Dhanbad, had issued notices asking the assessee to show cause why penalty should not be imposed under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing the income. The assessee filed a written reply showing cause against the imposition of penalty. The ITO, however, rejected the cause shown and imposed penalties of Rs. 1,500 and Rs. 1,000 for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64, respectively. The order imposing penalty was confirmed in appeal by the Assistant Commissioner by his order dated August 7, 1969. The assessee appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal against the aforesaid order. The Tribunal held that there was a legal obligation on the assessee to include the aforesaid income of the wife in the return filed by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income of the assessee by virtue of the provisions of s. 64 of the Act, and, therefore, had failed to establish that the assessee had concealed the same, was erroneous in law, inasmuch as the Tribunal had wrongly placed on the revenue the onus of establishing that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income even though this was case to which the Explanation to s. 271 (1) of the Act applied, and the assessee should have been deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income and furnished inaccurate particulars of such income for the purposes of cl. (c) of s. 271(1) of the Act. I will take up the second contention first. For, if it is not established either with reference to the Explanation to s. 271(1) of the Act or otherwise that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, it must be held that, on the facts and in the circumstances of these cases, the view of the Tribunal that penalty could not be imposed on the assessee is correct in law. Though an argument was advanced by Shri Jain appearing on behalf of the assessee that the Explanation was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or wilful neglect on his part. If he succeeds in discharging that onus, even though the difference in the amount of the returned income and the assessed income was more than 20 per cent., no penalty can be imposed under section 271 (1) (c).And, that, in my opinion, clearly gives a key to the interpretation of the main provisions contained in clause (c) after its amendment in 1964. If a case is not covered by the Explanation then charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income can be founded by recording a finding that the assessee had furnished such particulars due to his fraud, that means, deliberately or consciously, or such furnishing was a result of gross or wilful neglect on his part. The word 'furnished' also imports some positive act on the part of the assessee. The dictionary meaning of the word 'furnish', according to the Chambers Dictionary, is 'to fill up or supply completely or with what is necessary; to supply, provide; to equip'. If, therefore, the assessee while supplying the particulars of his income gives inaccurate particulars as a result of his fraud or gross or wilful neglect then and then only he can be subjected to the imposition of penalty under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alleged to have furnished inaccurate particulars, is the income of the wife which by virtue of s. 64 of the Act has to be included for the purposes of the assessment in the income of the assessee. The assessee denied that he had concealed any part of his income and this necessarily involved a plea that in his view the income of the wife was not his income within the meaning of the expression as used in s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and an argument to that effect was advanced on his behalf. His plea, therefore, was that he believed that the income of his wife was not the income which he was obliged to show in the return. I may mention here that at the time the returns were filed by the assessee, there was a specific column in the form of return in which the income of the wife which had to be included under s. 64 of the Act had to be shown. There was similarly a guidance note stating that such income should be included in the return. Under the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, in spite of the existence of such a guidance note, but in the absence of the specific column aforesaid, it was held by the Supreme Court in Muthiah Chettiar v. CIT [1969] 74 ITR 183 that there was n legal obligation on the par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
