1973 (7) TMI 14 - HC - Income Tax

High Court clarifies application of Explanation to Income-tax Act 1961, upholds penalty.

The Full Bench of the High Court analyzed the applicability of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year ... Return of income for the assessment year 1963-64 filed in 1966 showed income less than 80 per cent. of the assessed income - 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not applicable to this case?' - furnishing of inaccurate particulars was after the amendments - penalty would be justified Issues:Interpretation of Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the year of assessment 1963-64.Analysis:The case involved a reference to the Full Bench of the High Court regarding the applicability of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1963-64. The dispute arose from the discrepancy between the income disclosed by the assessee in the return filed in 1966 and the total income assessed by the authorities. The Tribunal had held that the Explanation, introduced by the Finance Act, 1964, was not applicable to the case as it had no retrospective effect. However, the Full Bench was tasked with reconsidering this decision due to conflicting views in previous judgments (I.T.R. No. 38 of 1970 and I.T.R. No. 71 of 1968).The Full Bench analyzed the provisions of the Explanation added to section 271(1)(c) by the Finance Act, 1964. The Explanation stated that if the total income returned by a person is less than 80% of the total income assessed, the person shall be deemed to have concealed income unless they prove the failure to return the correct income did not arise from fraud or neglect. In this case, the return filed in 1966 disclosed a significantly lower income compared to the total income assessed, triggering the application of the Explanation.The Full Bench emphasized that the year of assessment was not determinative of the liability under section 271(1)(c). It clarified that applying the amended section to an act committed after the amendment did not constitute retrospective application. The correct approach was to assess whether the elements of the section were satisfied at the time of the act. The Full Bench overturned the previous decision in I.T.R. No. 38 of 1970, aligning with the principles established in I.T.R. No. 71 of 1968 and other relevant case law.Ultimately, the Full Bench answered the reference question in the negative, favoring the department and confirming the imposition of the penalty by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs, and a copy of the judgment was to be forwarded to the Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.