TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (10) TMI 69
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case?" Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows: The reference relates to the assessment year 1971-72. For the assessment year 1971-72, the applicant filed its return of income on December 30, 1971, showing the total income of Rs. 71,870. However, the assessment was completed on an income of Rs. 1,68,350. The penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated for concealing the particulars of income and a notice was issued on March 21, 1977. No reply was received. On October 4, 1978, another show-cause notice was issued to the applicant requiring it to show cause as to why the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act should not be levied. For reasons best known to the applicant, it did not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e applicant. Therefore, the penalty was not exigible. In support of his aforesaid plea, he relied upon the following decisions: (1) CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC); (2) CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa and Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC); (3) CIT v. S. Devendra Singh [1977] 108 ITR 314 (All); and (4) Addl. CIT v. Chatur Singh Taragi [1978] 111 ITR 849 (All). Sri Mahajan, learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the applicant had not submitted any reply before the assessing authority in the course of the penalty proceedings and, therefore, the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was attracted as the assessee had not discharged the onus, the penalty had rightly been imposed. It may be mentioned here that by sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alty can be imposed, the entirety of circumstances must reasonably point to the conclusion that the disputed amount represented income and that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. However, with the incorporation of the Explanation to section 271(1) of 9 the Act, the apex court has held in the cases of CIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose [1987] 165 ITR 14 ; CIT v. K.R. Sadayappan [1990] 185 ITR 49 ; Addl. CIT v. Jeevan Lal Sah [1994] 205 ITR 244 and B.A. Balasubramaniam and Bros. Co. v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 that the view which had been taken earlier in CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC) no longer holds the field and it is for the assessee to discharge t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich is rebuttable and shifts burden of proof from the Department to the assessee. But when the question of concealment is decided on the evidence on record, the question of the burden of proof becomes immaterial. The presumption can be rebutted not only by direct evidence, but also by circumstantial evidence and where the Tribunal having come to the conclusion that the omission to include Rs. 2,400 in the return was accidental and was not due to any deliberate design, it could be safely presumed that the presumption raised by the Explanation stood rebutted. In the case of Chatur Singh Taragi [1978] 111 ITR 849, this court has held that merely because the explanation of the assessee is inaccurate or false that by itself is no ground for hol....