1976 (1) TMI 11 - HC - Income Tax

Court cancels penalty under Income-tax Act, 1961 for lack of evidence; assessee prevails

The High Court of Allahabad ruled in favor of the assessee, a registered firm, in a case concerning the cancellation of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) ... High Court Issues:1. Justification of canceling penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Interpretation of the Explanation to section 271 regarding the assessed income being less than the returned income.Detailed Analysis:The High Court of Allahabad was tasked with determining the justification of canceling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case involved an assessee, a registered firm engaged in the manufacturing business, which had filed a return for the year 1964-65 showing an income of Rs. 43,395. However, the Income-tax Officer assessed the income at Rs. 81,786, making certain additions including cash credits in the names of individuals. Upon appeal, these additions were partially upheld, resulting in the total income being reduced to Rs. 71,786. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, leading to the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 3,900 by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal, which overturned the penalty citing lack of evidence to show that the cash credits were concealed income, as the creditors admitted making the deposits. The Tribunal found that the penalty provisions were not attracted, leading to the cancellation of the penalty.Regarding the interpretation of the Explanation to section 271, the Revenue contended that the penalty should not have been canceled as the returned income was less than 80% of the assessed income, invoking the Explanation. However, the Court found this argument misconceived as there was no reliance on the Explanation during the penalty imposition process. The Explanation to section 271 applies only after recalculating the assessed income by deducting bona fide expenditures incurred by the assessee for earning disallowed income. Since such data was not available in the case record, the Explanation could not be applied. The Court emphasized that the Explanation requires specific data on expenditures, which was absent in this case, and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner did not delve into this aspect. Consequently, the Court rejected the Revenue's contention, affirming the cancellation of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) in favor of the assessee. No other contentions were raised, leading to a ruling in favor of the assessee with costs assessed at Rs. 200.