2002 (8) TMI 65 - HC - Income Tax

High Court sets aside penalty under Income-tax Act, reinstates Commissioner decision

Harigopal Singh Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax.

Harigopal Singh Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax. - [2002] 258 ITR 85, 177 CTR 580, 125 TAXMANN 242 Issues involved:Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act is attracted when income is assessed purely on an estimate basis and additions are made in the declared income on that basis.Detailed Analysis:1. Assessment of Income on Estimate Basis:The appellant, a sweets seller, did not maintain accounts and filed his income tax return on an estimate basis, declaring income at Rs. 52,000. The Assessing Officer assessed the income at Rs. 2,07,500 by estimating sales and gross profit, which was later reduced to Rs. 1,50,000 by the Tribunal. The issue arose when penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c) on the grounds of concealing income.2. Concealment of Income and Penalty Imposition:The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000, alleging that the appellant concealed income, as additions were made on an estimate basis. The appellant contended that since no positive concealment was detected, and additions were based on estimates, penalty under section 271(1)(c) should not be imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating there was no positive evidence of concealment.3. Tribunal's Decision and Legal Interpretation:The Tribunal reversed the Commissioner's decision, leading to the present appeal. The High Court analyzed the situation and emphasized that for penalty under section 271(1)(c) to apply, there must be a positive act of concealment by the assessee. The Court noted that the Assessing Officer and Tribunal had differing estimates, indicating no deliberate concealment by the appellant.4. Justification of Estimate and Explanation 1(B):The Court criticized the Tribunal for relying on Explanation 1(B) to raise a presumption against the assessee. It highlighted that the appellant justified the estimate based on household expenses and investments, and there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. The Court concluded that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) are not applicable when income is assessed on an estimate basis without proof of intentional concealment.5. Court's Decision and Conclusion:The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified in this case where income was assessed on an estimate basis. The Tribunal's order was set aside, and the Commissioner (Appeals) decision was restored. The appellant was awarded costs amounting to Rs. 500.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies involved in determining the applicability of penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act in cases where income is assessed on an estimate basis without evidence of intentional concealment.