1980 (9) TMI 76 - HC - Income Tax

High Court overturns Tribunal decision canceling penalties under Income-tax Act for assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67, and 1968-69.

Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kanpur Versus DD. Lamba And Co.

The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in canceling penalties imposed for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67, and 1968-69 under section 271(1)(c) ... Penalty Issues Involved:1. Legality of the cancellation of penalties imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with its Explanation.2. Whether the assessee discharged the onus under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Legality of the Cancellation of PenaltiesThe Tribunal had cancelled the penalties imposed on the assessee for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67, and 1968-69. The Tribunal's decision was based on the view that the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) created a legal fiction of deemed concealment only when the returned income fell short of 80% of the assessed income due to the addition of extra profit on the basis of estimates. However, the High Court disagreed with this interpretation. The High Court emphasized that the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) clearly applies even in cases where the assessee's income is assessed based on best judgment assessments due to improper maintenance of books. The High Court cited previous judgments, including Addl. CIT v. Swatantra Confectionery and CIT v. Kedar Nath Ram Nath, to support its view that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is attracted if the returned income is less than 80% of the assessed income, unless the assessee can prove that the shortfall was not due to fraud or gross or willful neglect.Issue 2: Discharge of Onus by the AssesseeThe Tribunal had concluded that the assessee discharged the negative burden by showing that the income returned was based on books kept in the regular course of business and that the difference between the assessed and returned income was due to estimated additions. The High Court, however, found this reasoning flawed. It held that merely showing that the income was based on regular books and that additions were made on estimates does not discharge the onus under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c). The High Court stated that the Tribunal failed to consider whether the assessee had demonstrated that the failure to return the correct income was not due to fraud or gross or willful neglect. The High Court clarified that the burden on the assessee is not as stringent as in criminal cases but requires the assessee to provide a plausible explanation consistent with the absence of fraud or willful neglect.Conclusion:The High Court concluded that the Tribunal was not correct in cancelling the penalties imposed for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67, and 1968-69. The Tribunal also erred in holding that the assessee had discharged the onus under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c). The High Court directed that the matter be reconsidered with proper application of the legal principles regarding the burden of proof under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c).Judgment Summary:- For assessment year 1965-66:- The Tribunal was not correct in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 5,000.- The Tribunal was not justified in holding that the onus had been discharged.- For assessment year 1966-67:- The Tribunal was not correct in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 13,000.- For assessment year 1968-69:- The Tribunal was not correct in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 9,000.- The Tribunal was not justified in holding that the onus had been discharged.The High Court directed the parties to bear their own costs.