1982 (6) TMI 12 - HC - Income Tax

High Court upholds assessee's challenge on penalty for income concealment under Income Tax Act

The High Court of Calcutta considered a penalty imposed on an assessee under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment ... Hundi Loans, Penalty Issues:Penalty under Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for assessment year 1964-65.Analysis:The High Court of Calcutta considered a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the cancellation of a penalty levied on the assessee under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1964-65. The case involved an assessee, a registered firm engaged in the manufacture and sale of steam and hydraulic packings, who declared an income of Rs. 55,721 for the relevant assessment year. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) found credits in the accounts of four hundiwallas, leading to penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274(2) of the Act. The IAC imposed a penalty of Rs. 16,500 under section 271(1)(c) after considering the income sought to be evaded and interest wrongly claimed. The assessee challenged the penalty before the Tribunal, arguing against the application of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) and the Department's failure to prove concealment of income. The Tribunal ultimately deleted the penalty, noting a significant margin between the income returned and assessed, and rejecting the Revenue's arguments based on the Punjab and Delhi High Court decisions. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the findings of fact were not challenged as perverse, and concluded that the question must be answered in the negative and in favor of the assessee. The parties were directed to pay their own costs.This judgment highlights the importance of proving concealment of income and the burden of proof on the Department in penalty proceedings under the Income Tax Act. It underscores the significance of factual findings by the Tribunal and the limited scope of challenging such findings on appeal. The case also illustrates the need for a clear link between the income sought to be evaded and the penalty imposed under the relevant provisions of the Act. The High Court's decision provides guidance on interpreting and applying the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) and emphasizes the necessity for concrete evidence of fraud or wilful neglect to justify the imposition of penalties on taxpayers.