1985 (5) TMI 83 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds penalty for income concealment under Income-tax Act, 1961

Income-Tax Officer. Versus Belliss And Morcom.

Income-Tax Officer. Versus Belliss And Morcom. - ITD 014, 361, Issues Involved:1. Validity of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Justification for the disallowance of special commission expenses.3. Requirement of mens rea for imposing penalty.4. Applicability of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) post-1976 amendment.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Penalty Imposed under Section 271(1)(c):The appeal challenges the deletion of a penalty amounting to Rs. 24,183 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1978-79. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) had imposed this penalty for concealment of income, which was initially upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal.2. Justification for the Disallowance of Special Commission Expenses:The assessee-company had debited Rs. 41,875 as special commission paid to two parties. The ITO required the assessee to provide supporting evidence for these payments, which the assessee failed to produce. Consequently, the ITO disallowed the expenses, a decision upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted, 'The assessee's learned counsel was unable to produce before us any evidence in regard to the actual services rendered by the two selling agents.'3. Requirement of Mens Rea for Imposing Penalty:The Commissioner (Appeals) had deleted the penalty on the grounds that no mens rea (intent to deceive) was established by the ITO. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed, 'The basic ingredient of the main provisions of section 271(1)(c) is the existence of mens rea. Therefore, unless the assessing authority establishes the existence of mens rea, the penalty cannot be said to be exigible.'4. Applicability of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) Post-1976 Amendment:The department argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) misdirected himself in law by not considering Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c), effective from 1-4-1976. The Explanation shifts the burden of proof onto the assessee to substantiate their claims. The Tribunal noted, 'Once the ITO was able to show that the assessee did not substantiate the explanation given by him, the assessee was caught within the aforesaid Explanation and it had to be presumed by the fiction of law that there was concealment of income.'Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim for special commission expenses and did not disclose all material facts necessary for the computation of total income. The Tribunal reversed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restored that of the ITO, thereby upholding the penalty. The Tribunal stated, 'The amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of the assessee amounting to Rs. 41,875, shall for the purpose of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars had been concealed.'Judgment:The departmental appeal was allowed, and the penalty imposed by the ITO was upheld. The quantum of penalty, being the minimum imposed, was not interfered with.