Burden of proof in advance-tax penalty matters lies on the department to show a knowingly untrue estimate.

Penalty proceedings for furnishing an untrue advance-tax estimate were treated as penal and quasi-criminal in character, so the provision was read in pari materia with the penalty rule for concealment or inaccurate particulars. On that basis, the department had to establish from material on record that the estimate was knowingly untrue or was believed to be untrue by the assessee. The text states that, on the facts, the department did not discharge that burden, and the petition failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in proceedings for penalty for furnishing an untrue estimate of advance tax, the burden lies on the revenue to prove that the estimate was false to the assessee's knowledge or that the assessee had reason to believe it to be untrue.

Analysis: The penalty provision for furnishing an untrue advance-tax estimate was treated as being in pari materia with the provision for penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on the settled principle that penalty proceedings are penal in character and quasi-criminal in nature, the Court held that the reasoning in the earlier Supreme Court decision on concealment of income governed the present provision as well. On that basis, the department was required to establish, by material on record, that the estimate was knowingly untrue or believed to be untrue by the assessee. The factual finding that the department had not discharged that burden did not give rise to a substantial question of law.

Conclusion: The burden lay on the department, and the petition failed.

---