High Court: Respondent's Income Disclosure Lacked Proof of No Negligence. Tribunal Erred in Reducing Penalty. Revenue Prevails.

The High Court held that the respondent failed to prove no wilful negligence in income disclosure, as the assessed income was more than double the disclosed income, triggering the Explanation to section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal erred in reducing the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for a trading addition of Rs. 18,446 in the assessment year 1979-80. The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, answering the question referred against the assessee. No costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues:
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for trading addition of Rs. 18,446 in assessment year 1979-80.

Analysis:
The case involved a question of law referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for a trading addition of Rs. 18,446 in the assessment year 1979-80. The respondent, a dealer in medicine, had undisclosed purchase vouchers and unrecorded sales found during a search conducted on their premises. The Income-tax Officer estimated the income by applying the proviso to section 145 of the Act, resulting in an assessed income of Rs. 64,469 compared to the disclosed income of Rs. 32,285.

The assessing authority initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000, which was partially upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which ultimately dismissed the appeal. The Revenue argued that as the assessed income was more than double the disclosed income, the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) applied, placing the onus on the respondent to prove no wilful negligence in income disclosure.

Upon careful consideration, the High Court found that the assessed income being more than double the disclosed income triggered the Explanation to section 271(1)(c), indicating concealment of income by the respondent due to suppression of purchases and sales. Consequently, the court held that the respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving no wilful negligence, leading to the conclusion that the Tribunal erred in upholding the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision to reduce the penalty. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, answering the question referred in the negative against the assessee. No costs were awarded in this matter.

---