1996 (11) TMI 52 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty upheld under Income-tax Act for undisclosed income in foodgrains business

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Lal Chand Tirath Ram

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Lal Chand Tirath Ram - [1997] 225 ITR 675, 140 CTR 583, 92 TAXMANN 320 Issues Involved:1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that no penalty was leviable on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Summary:Issue 1: Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961The Revenue sought the court's opinion on whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that no penalty was leviable on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in the business of foodgrains, was found to have discrepancies in its stock records during the assessment year 1976-77. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed a difference between the stock kept in the warehouse and the stock shown in the assessee's books of account, leading to an addition of Rs. 6,440 to the assessee's income as undisclosed income.The assessee's explanation that 94 bags of barley belonged to Sardul Singh was not substantiated with adequate evidence. Despite a confirmatory letter from Sardul Singh and his subsequent examination by the AO, the explanation was rejected as Sardul Singh was primarily a truck driver with no substantial evidence of agricultural produce.The AO initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars u/s 271(1)(c) and levied a penalty of Rs. 4,959. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the assessee's plea and canceled the penalty, which was upheld by the Tribunal.The court examined the provisions of section 271(1)(c) and Explanation 1, which shifts the burden of proof to the assessee to substantiate their explanation. The court noted that the assessee failed to provide cogent and reliable evidence to substantiate the explanation, and the explanation was not found to be bona fide.The court concluded that the Tribunal's finding that penalty was not leviable could not be sustained. The assessee failed to substantiate the explanation or show that it was bona fide and disclosed all material facts. Therefore, the levy of penalty was found to be valid and justified u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The question of law was answered in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.