B. A. BALASUBRAMANIAM & BROS. CO. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
1999 P T D 3266
[236 I T R 977]
[Supreme Court of India]
Present: B. N. Kirpal and S. P. Kurdukar JJ
B. A. BALASUBRAMANIAM & BROS. CO.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
C. As. Nos. 1515 to 1517 of 1985, decided on 22/01/1998.
(Appeals from the judgment-and order, dated February 27, 1984 of the Madras High Court in, T.C. Nos: 813 to 815 of 1979).
Income-tax---
----Penalty---Concealment of income---Burden of proof---income shown in return less than eighty percent of assessed income---Law applicable-Effect of Explanation to S.271(1)(c)---Burden on assessee to prove that there had been no concealment of income---Burden not discharged---Levy of penalty was valid---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.271.
After the incorporation of the Explanation in section 27i(1)(c) of the income Tax Act, 1961, 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 prove that there had been no concealment of income where the income shown in the return is less than eighty percent of the assessed income.
CIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose (1987) 165 ITR 14 (SC); CIT v: K. R. Sadayappan (1990) 185 ITR 49 (SC) and CIT (Addl.) v. Jeevan Lal Sah (1994) 205 ITR 244 (SC) fol.
Held, affirming the decision of the High Court, that the High Court was correct in holding that as the income returned was less than 80 percent of income assessed, the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) became applicable and the Income-tax Officer was justified in imposing penalty because the assessee had not been able to discharge the onus which was on it under the 'Explanation to section 271(1)(c).
CIT v B. A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. (1985) 152 ITR 529 affirmed.
CIT v. Anwar Ali (1970 76 ITR 696 (SC) ref.
Ms. Janaki Ramchandran, Advocate for Appellant.
Harish Chandra (K.N. Nagpal and B. K. Prasad, Advocates with him) for Respondent.
JUDGMENT
In these appeals the question involved relates to the interpretation of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act for the purpose of levying penalty on the concealed income. The High Court, on a reference having been made, has come to the conclusion that as the difference between the income assessed and the income returned was more than 20 per cent, therefore, the said Explanation became applicable and the Income-tax Officer was justified in imposing penalty because the assessee had not been able to discharge the onus which was on it under the said Explanation. For the interpretation of the said provision we need to refer to three decisions of this Court, viz., CIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose (1987) 165 ITR 14; CIT v. K. R. Sadayappan (1990) 185 ITR 49 and CIT (Addl.) v. Jeevan Lal Sah (1994) 205 ITR 244. In these decisions it has been clearly stated that with the incorporation of the Explanation to section 271, the view which had been taken earlier in CIT v. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696, no longer holds the field and it is for the assessee to discharge the onus as contemplated in the said Explanation. In view of the fact that in the instant case the onus has not been discharged, the High Court judgment calls for no interference, The appeals are accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs.
M.B.A./3314/FC???????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeals dismissed.