TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (2) TMI 56
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of both the years under reference ?" The facts of this case in a nutshell are that the assessee is an individual and was assessed for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. In the return for the assessment year 1971-72, the income from property was shown as Rs. 1,750 whereas income from the business was shown as Rs. 1,200. The assessee was assessed on the income of Rs. 11,750 for that year. Similarly, for the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee filed its return showing the income from house property as well as business income as nil. For that year the assessee was assessed at the income of Rs. 11,750. The difference in the business income disclosed by the assessee and determined by the Income-tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....belonged to his minor son and, as such, the minor son had filed a separate return of income though the Income-tax Officer had clubbed the said income in the hands of the assessee. There was no mens rea on the part of the assessee. The Tribunal had reduced the amount of taxability of the assessee while confirming the order of the Income-tax Officer holding that no penalty could be imposed without establishing the mens rea. However, the Income-tax Officer was not satisfied with the reply of the assessee and confirmed the penalty imposed on the assessee. As against the said order an appeal was filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who held that in the penalty proceedings the burden was on the Department to prove the fact and establ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person--... (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty--... (iii) in the cases referred to in clause (c), in addition to any tax payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed twice, the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of the concealment of particulars of his income or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income : Provided that, if in a case falling under clause (c), the amount of income (as determined by the Income-tax Officer on assessment) in respect of which the particulars have been conceale....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inference that the disputed amount represents income. It cannot be said that the finding given in the assessment proceedings for determining or computing the tax is conclusive. However, it is good evidence. Before penalty can be imposed the entirety of the 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. In the other decision reported in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that an order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal....