High Court Of Calcutta
S. C. Deb, Sudhindra Mohan Guha
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - Appellant
Versus
W.J.WALKER AND COMPANY - Respondent
Income-Tax Reference 575 Of 1971
Decided On : 04/04/1978
INCOME TAX - Penalty - Concealment of income - Explanation to Section 271 (2) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessee failed to prove that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or any gross or wilful neglect on his part - Tribunal erred in cancelling the penalty order - Reference answered in the negative.
Fact of the Case:
The assessee, a company, was found to have a cash credit of Rs. 50,000 in its books of account. The assessee claimed that the amount was a loan from one Ramchandra Berlia, but the ITO was not satisfied with the genuineness of the loan and added the amount to the assessee's income as undisclosed income. The assessee did not file an appeal from the assessment order. The ITO initiated penalty proceedings and the IAC imposed a penalty of Rs. 38,099 on the assessee. The assessee filed an appeal to the Tribunal, which cancelled the penalty order.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal erred in cancelling the penalty order. The Explanation to Section 271 (2) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 presumes fraud, gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee where the total income returned is less than 80 per cent. of the total income as assessed under Section 143 or Section 144 or Section 147. The assessee failed to prove that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or any gross or wilful neglect on its part. Therefore, the assessee was deemed to have concealed particulars of its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income for the purposes of Clause (c) of Section 271 (1) of the Act.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee could not be deemed to have concealed the particulars of its income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 271 (2) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, on that view, cancelling the penalty order under Section 271 (1) (c)?
Ratio Decidendi: The Explanation to Section 271 (2) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 presumes fraud, gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee where the total income returned is less than 80 per cent. of the total income as assessed under Section 143 or Section 144 or Section 147. The assessee failed to prove that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or any gross or wilful neglect on its part. Therefore, the assessee was deemed to have concealed particulars of its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income for the purposes of Clause (c) of Section 271 (1) of the Act.
Final Decision: The reference is answered in the negative. The Tribunal erred in cancelling the penalty order.
( 1 ) THIS is a reference under Section 256 (1) of the I. T. Act, 1961. The question before us is as follows :"whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee could not be deemed to have concealed the particulars of its income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 271 (2) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, on that view, cancelling the penalty order under Section 271 (1) (c)?"
( 2 ) THE statement of the case relates to the assessment year 1964-65, the relevant accounting year ending on December 31, 1963. In the course of of the assessment proceedings the ITO found that there was a cash credit of Rs. 50,000. The assessee's case was that it was a loan from Berlia Cloth Stores which belonged to one Ramchandra Berlia. The I. T. O. was not satisfied with the genuineness of the loan and issued a summons under Section 131 on Shri Berlia and, as he was out of Calcutta, his employee, Shri Masudilal Agarwalla, gave evidence before the ITO.
( 3 ) THE evidence of Shri Masudilal Agarwalla is as follows : He was the sole employee of Mr. Berlia ; his salary was Rs. 150 per month ; he and Mr. Berlia lived in that shop; no books were maintained by the shop ; Mr. Berlia was assessed to income-tax on estimate ; besides the said shop, Mr. Berila had no other source of income at Calcutta nor had he any other asset at Calcutta ; and the alleged loan was not given through him nor he knew anything about it.
( 4 ) APART from the aforesaid evidence of Shri Masudilal Agarwalla, it was found by the ITO that for the assessment year 1962-63 the income of Mr. Berlia was returned at Rs. 1,500 and it was assessed under Section 143 (3) of the Act at Rs. 5,500, for the assessment year 1963-64, the income was returned at Rs. 1,800 and it was assessed at Rs. 5,800 under the aforesaid Section and for the assessment year 1964-65 the income was returned at Rs. 4,500 and it was assessed at Rs. 10,000 under Section 144. The assessment records of Shri Berlia also revealed that he did not maintain any books of account and had no banking account.
( 5 ) IN view of all the aforesaid facts, the ITO was not satisfied with the creditworthiness of Mr. Berlia and held that the loan was not genuine. He accordingly added Rs. 50,000 as the assessee's income from undisclosed sources. The assessee did not file any appeal from the assessment order.
( 6 ) AS the ITO was satisfied in the course of the assessment proceedings that the assessee has deliberately filed an incorrect return of income and has also concealed its income, he initiated the penalty proceedings and referred it to the IAC who, after hearing the assessee and considering the materials on the record held that the loan was not genuine and the aforesaid amount was the assessee's concealed income from undisclosed sources. He also held that the assessee had deliberately filed an incorrect return and accordingly he imposed a penalty of Rs. 38,099.
( 7 ) THE assessee filed an appeal from the penalty order. The departmental representative argued before the Tribunal that the Explanation under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act was applicable in the instant case. The Explanation runs thus:"where the total income returned by any person is less than eighty per cent. of the total income (hereinafter in this Explanation referred to as the correct income) as assessed under Section 143 or Section 144 or Section 147 (reduced by the expenditure incurred bona fide by him for the purpose of making or earning any income included in the total income but which has been disallowed as a deduction), such person shall, unless he proves that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or any gross or wilful neglect on his part, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income for the purposes of Clause (c) of this Sub-section. "
( 8
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.