1972 (9) TMI 5 - SC - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s271(1)(c) for deliberate concealment or inaccurate particulars upheld despite notice timing

Whether penalty under s.271(1)(c) can be levied hinges on the Income-tax Officer's satisfaction during proceedings that the assessee concealed income or ... Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) - requisite satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer - concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars - HELD THAT:- The fact that notices were issued subsequent to the making of the assessment orders would not, in our opinion, show that there was no satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer during the assessment proceedings that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or had furnished incorrect particulars of such income. What is contemplated by clause (1) of section 271 is that the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should have been satisfied in the course of proceedings under the Act regarding matters mentioned in the clauses of that sub-section. It is not, however, essential that notice to the person proceeded against should have also been issued during the course of the assessment proceedings. Satisfaction in the very nature of things precedes the issue of notice and it would not be correct to equate the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer or Appellate Assistant Commissioner with the actual issue of notice. The issue of notice is a consequence of the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and it would, in our opinion, be sufficient compliance with the provisions of the statute if the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is satisfied about the matters referred to in clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 during the course of proceedings under the Act even though notice to the person proceeded against in pursuance of that satisfaction is issued subsequently. The proceedings for the imposition of penalty in terms of sub-section (1) of section 271 have necessarily to be initiated either by the Income-tax Officer or by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The fact that the Income-tax Officer has to refer the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner if the minimum imposable penalty exceeds the sum of rupees one thousand in a case falling under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 would not show that the proceedings in such a case cannot be initiated by the Income-tax Officer. The Income-tax Officer in such an event can refer the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner after initiating the proceedings. It would, indeed, be the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings regarding the concealment of income which would constitute the basis and foundation, of the proceedings for levy of penalty. The present is not a case of inference from mere falsity of explanation given by the assessee, but a case wherein there are definite findings that a device had been deliberately created by the assessee for the purpose of concealing his income. Appeals dismissed. Issues: (i) Whether proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271 were properly commenced in the course of proceedings under the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1962-63; (ii) Whether there was material or evidence before the Tribunal to hold that the assessee had deliberately concealed particulars of income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) for the said assessment years.Issue (i): Whether proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271 were properly commenced in the course of proceedings under the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1962-63.Analysis: Clause (c) of section 271(1) requires satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer or Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the course of proceedings under the Act that particulars were concealed or inaccurately furnished. Satisfaction need not be equated with the contemporaneous issue of notice; satisfaction may precede issuance of notice and the subsequent issuance of notice does not invalidate initiation where satisfaction arose during assessment proceedings. The statutory procedure in section 274 (including referral to Inspecting Assistant Commissioner where minimum penalty exceeds Rs.1000) permits reference after initiation but does not negate that the Income-tax Officer's satisfaction during assessment can constitute the basis for penalty proceedings.Conclusion: The Court held that the penalty proceedings were properly commenced during the course of proceedings under the Act and that this issue is decided against the assessee.Issue (ii): Whether there was material or evidence before the Tribunal to hold that the assessee had deliberately concealed particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment years in question.Analysis: The Tribunal relied on detailed findings from registration and appeal proceedings concerning the alleged partnership which showed that purported partners were dummies and that the business was controlled by the assessee. The Tribunal's factual conclusions established a scheme to disguise profits of the assessee as those of a firm; the finding was based on positive material beyond mere falsity of explanations. Precedents requiring reasonable indicia of concealment were considered, but the present case involved affirmative evidence of a device to conceal income.Conclusion: The Court held that there was sufficient material and evidence before the Tribunal to support a finding of deliberate concealment and deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and this issue is decided against the assessee.Final Conclusion: The appeals are dismissed and the Tribunal's imposition of penalties (subject to its adjustments on quantum) is upheld, affirming that an assessing officer's recorded satisfaction during assessment proceedings can validly found penalty proceedings and that affirmative evidentiary findings of a scheme to disguise income sustain penalty under section 271(1)(c).Ratio Decidendi: Satisfaction of the assessing officer that an assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars, if formed in the course of proceedings under the Income-tax Act, suffices to commence penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c); subsequent issuance of notice or referral under section 274 does not vitiate initiation based on such satisfaction, and affirmative factual findings establishing a device to disguise income can support imposition of penalty.