Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 12 docs - [View All]
Section 28 in The Income- Tax Act, 1995
Section 2 in The Income- Tax Act, 1995
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Gokuldas Harivallabhdas on 14 March, 1958
Section 8 in The Income- Tax Act, 1995
The Income- Tax Act, 1995
Citedby 517 docs - [View All]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs T.K. Manicka Gounder on 24 January, 1989
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Bihar Cotton Mills Limited on 23 April, 1986
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Hiralal Shankarlal on 28 January, 1986
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M.B. Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. on 21 November, 1984
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Goswami Smt. Chandralata Bahuji on 22 February, 1978

User Queries
Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Supreme Court of India
Commissioner Of Income Tax West ... vs Anwar Ali on 29 April, 1970
Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 1782, 1971 SCR (1) 446
Author: A Grover
Bench: Grover, A.N.
           PETITIONER:
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WEST BENGAL

	Vs.

RESPONDENT:
ANWAR ALI

DATE OF JUDGMENT:
29/04/1970

BENCH:
GROVER, A.N.
BENCH:
GROVER, A.N.
SHAH, J.C.
HEGDE, K.S.

CITATION:
 1970 AIR 1782		  1971 SCR  (1) 446
 1970 SCC  (2) 185
 CITATOR INFO :
 F	    1972 SC 132	 (18)
 D	    1973 SC  22	 (13)
 RF	    1977 SC2194	 (2)
 RF	    1980 SC1146	 (7)
 RF	    1992 SC 591	 (2)


ACT:
Income-tax  Act	 (11 of 1922),	s.  28-Penalty	proceedings-
Whether of a criminal nature-Onus on department show  amount
concealed as income.



HEADNOTE:
The  Income-tax Officer, while assessing the  respondent  to
tax   discovered   an  undisclosed  bank  account   of	 the
'respondent  for  a  large  sum.   He  did  not	 accept	 the
explanation of the respondent as to the source of the amount
and  held  that it represented income  from  an	 undisclosed
source.	  Thereafter he initiated penalty proceedings  under
s.  28	and  imposed a penalty which was  confirmed  by	 the
Appellate  Assistant Commissioner.  In appeal, the  Tribunal
held that penalty proceedings were of a criminal nature	 and
that  the  burden  lay on the department to  show  that	 the
amount concealed was of a revenue nature and was  assessable
as  income  and	 that the onus was  not	 discharged  in	 the
present	  case	by  merely  showing  that   the	  assessee's
explanation was not accepted in the assessment	proceedings.
The High Court agreed with the Tribunal.
In appeal to this Court,
HELD. (1) Penalty proceedings are included in the expression
"assessment"  and  the	true  nature of	 a  penalty  is	 the
imposition of an additional tax.  But, one of the  principal
objects	 of  s.	 28  is	 to  provide  a	 deterrent   against
recurrence  of default on the part of the assessee.   There-
fore,  the section is a penal provision and the	 proceedings
were of a penal nature. [450 B-C]
C.   A. Abraham v. Income-tax officer, 41 I.T.R. 425 (S.C.),
explained. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad v. Gokuldas
Harivallabhdas
34 I.T.R. 98,  Commissioner of Income-tax Gujarat v.  L.  H.
Vora, 56 I.T.R. 126 and Commissioner of Income Tax Bihar and
Orissa v. Mohan Mallah, 54    I.T.R. 499, approved.
Moman	  Rain	Ram  Kumar v.  Commissioner  of	 Income-tax,
U.P., 59 I.T.R. 135 and Lal Chand Gopal Das v.	Commissioner
of Income-tax, U.P., 48 I.T.R. 324, not approved.
Hindustan  Steel  Ltd. v. State of Orissa, C.As.  Nos.	883-
892/66	dt.  4-8-1969 and Fattorini  (Thomas)  (Lanchashire)
Ltd.  v.  Inland Revenue Commissioner,	(1943)	(11)  I.T.R.
Supp. 50, referred to.
(2)The	gist  of the offence under s. 28(1)(c) is  that	 the
assessee  has  concealed the particulars of  his  income  or
deliberately   furnished  inaccurate  particulars  of	such
income,	 and therefore, the department must  establish	that
the  receipt of the amount in dispute constitutes income  of
the assessee.  If there is no evidence on the record  except
the  explanation  has been found to be false,  if  does	 not
follow that the receipt constitutes his taxable income. [450
E-G]
			    447
Commissioner	of,   Income-tax,    Ahmedabad	  v.Gokuldas
Harivallabhdas, 34 I.T.R. 98, approved.
(3)'Since the proceedings under s. 28 are of a penal  nature
and  the  burden  is  on the  department  to  prove  that  a
particular amount is a revenue receipt, the finding given in
the  assessment proceedings that the assessee's	 explanation
is  false and that the disputed amount represents income  is
evidence  but  is not conclusive.  Before penalty  could  be
imposed the, entirety of circumstances must reasonably point
to  the	 conclusion  that the  disputed	 amount	 represented
income	and that the assesses , had  consciously.  concealed
the particulars of his income or had deliberately  furnished
inaccurate particulars. [450-451 A-C]



JUDGMENT:

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2560 of 1966. Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 11, 1966 of the Calcutta High Court in Income-tax Matter No. 98 of 1962. S. T. Desai, G. C. Sharma and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellants.

D. K. De, A. N. Sinha, Rathin Das for P. K. Mukherjee, for respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judg- ment of the Calcutta High Court answering the following question which was referred to it by the Tribunal in the negative and in favour of the assessee.

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax authorities were justified in imposing a penalty on the assessee under Section, 28 (1) (c) of the Income-tax Act ?"

The assessee during the assessment year 1947-48, the corresponding- previous year being the financial year ending on March 31, 947 was a partner in the firm of M/s. Haji Sk. Md. Hussain Md. Jan of Calcutta. The Income-tax Officer while making the assessment discovered an undisclosed bank account of the assessee with the Central Bank of India Ltd. Bettiah, Bihar. It was found that a cash-deposit of Rs. 87,000 had been made by the assessee on November 21, 1946 in that Bank. He was asked to explain the source, of the amount of deposit. According to his explanation all his relations got panicky during the communal riots in Bihar in the year 1946 and entrusted him with whatever cash amounts they had with them at that time for safe custody.

448

It was stated that a sum of Rs. 87,000 had been received in the following manner Zahir Hussain alias Md. Zahir (Cousin)Rs. 18,500/- Mohammad Jan (deceased father)Rs. 1,000 Mohd. Haniff (cousin) Rs.1,750 Khairunnessa Bibi (mother)Rs.23,000 Safihan Bibi (Sister) Rs.13,000 Fatema Bibi (Wife) Rs.15,750 Hasuia Bibi (Brother's wife)Rs.12,000 ___________ Rs.87,000 ____________ These amounts which were received by the assessee from his relations were deposited by him in a fixed deposit account in the joint name of himself and his minor sons in the Bank at Bettiah. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and held that the sum of Rs. 87,000 represented income from undisclosed sources. He added the amount to the total income of the assessee in his personal assessment. This addition was maintained by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal. The Appellate Tribunal also agreed with the decision of ,the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Penalty proceedings were initiated after the assessment and in due course the Income-tax Officer imposed a penalty amounting to Rs. 66,000 on the assessee under S. 28 (1) (c) for concealing income and deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal held that the case clearly called for a penal action but he reduced the amount of penalty by Rs. 22,000. Subsequently he rectified his order under S. 35 and confirmed the penalty of Rs. 66,000 imposed by the Income-tax Officer. The assessee went up to the Appellate Tribunal in appeal. The Tribunal took the view that penalty proceedings were of a criminal nature. The onus lay on the department to show by adequate evidence that the amount of the cash stated to have been concealed by the assessee was of a revenue nature and was assessable as income and that the assessee had concealed it or deliberately furnished false particulars in regard thereto. This onus, in the opinion of the Tribunal, was not ,discharged by the Income-tax authorities by showing merely that the explanation given by the assessee in the assessment proceedings was found to be unacceptable. The Income-tax Officer, according to the Tribunal, must find some material apart from he falsity of the assessee's explanation to support his finding that the receipt from undisclosed sources was income. As no satisfactory evidence had been produced by the department to establish 4 49 that the amount in question represented the income of the assessee the Tribunal held that no penalty could be imposed. Now penalty can be imposed under s. 28 (1) (c) if the Income tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Appellate Tribunal in the course of any proceedings under the Income-tax Act 1922 is satisfied that any person "has concealed the particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income". In the judgment under appeal reference has been made to the decisions of the various High Courts on the true ambit and scope of this provision and the burden in the matter of establishing concealment of particulars of income or deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. The majority of High Courts, namely, Bombay in Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad v. Gokuldas Harivallabhdas(1), Gujarat in Commissioner of Income-tax Gujarat v. L. H. Vora (2 ) and Patna in Commissioner of Income-tax Bihar & Orissa v. Mohan Mallah(3) had expressed the view that proceedings under s. 28 ( 1 ) (c) were of a penal nature and it was for the department to establish that the assessee was guilty of concealment of, the particulars of income. The mere fact that the assessee had given a false explanation did not prove that the receipt necessarily constituted income of the assessee. Allahabad High Court, however, in Moman Rain Rant Kumar(1) v. Commissioner of Income-tax U.P. observed that where the explanation offered by the assessee in respect of an item of income- shown as capital receipt was deliberately false it was open to the Income-tax authorities to impose a penalty under s. 2 8 (1)

(c). In the earlier judgment in Lal Chand Gopal Das v. Commissioner of Income-tax U.P.(5) the Allahabad court had said that if a receipt was income but was disguised in the account or in the return as a non-assessable receipt it was clearly a case of concealment of the particulars or of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and a penalty under s. 2 8 (1) (c) should be imposed on the assessee. The first point which falls 'for determination is whether the imposition of penalty is in the nature of a penal provision. The determination of the question of burden of proof will depend largely on the penalty proceedings being penal in nature or being merely meant for imposition of an additional tax,, the liability to pay such tax having been designated as penalty under s. 28. One line of argument which has prevailed particularly with the Allahabad High Court in Lal Chand Gopal Das(5) cage is that there was no essential difference between tax and penalty because the liability for payment of both was imposed as a part of the- (1) 34 I.T.R. 98. (2) 56 I.T.R.

126. (3) 54 I.T.R. 499. (4) 59 ].T.

P. 135.

(5) 48 I.T.R. 324., 450

-machinery of assessment and the penalty was merely an additional tax imposed in certain circumstances on account of the assessee's conduct. The justification of this view was founded on certain observations in C. A. Abraham v. Income-tax Officer, Kottayam & Anr.(1). It is true that penalty proceedings under s. 28 are included in the expression "assessment" and the true nature of penalty has been held to be additional tax. But one of the principal objects in enacting S. 28 is to provide a deterrent against recurrence of default on the part of the assessee. The section is penal in the sense that its consequences are intended to be an effective deterrent which will put a Stop to practices which the legislature considers to be against the public interest. It is significant that in C. A. Abraham's(1) case this Court was not called upon to determine whether penalty proceedings were penal or of quasi penal nature and the observations made with regard to penalty being an additional tax were made in a different context and for a different purpose. It appears to have been taken as settled by now in the sales tax law that an order imposing penalty is the result of a quasi criminal proceedings; (Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. The State of Orissa(1). In England also it has never been doubted that such proceedings are penal; Fattorini (Thomas) (Lanchashire) (Ltd., v. Inland Revenue Commissioner (3). The next question is that when proceedings under S. 28 are penal in character what would be the nature of the burden upon the department for establishing that the assessee is liable to payment of penalty. As has been rightly observed by Chagla C.J., in Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad v, Gokuldas Harivallabhdas (4) the gist of the offence under S. 2 8 ( 1 ) (c) is that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income and therefore the department must establish that the receipt of the amount in dispute ,constitutes income of the assessee. If there is no evidence on the record except the explanation given by the assessee which ,explanation has been found to be false it does not follow that the receipt constitutes his taxable income.

Another point is whether a finding given in the assessment proceedings that a particular receipt is income after rejecting the explanation given by the assessee as false would prima facie be sufficient for establishing in proceedings under S. 28 that the disputed amount was the assessee's income. It must be remembered that the proceedings under S. 28 are of a penal nature and the burden is on the department to prove that a particular amount (1) 41 1. T.R. 425.

(3) 1943 (11) I.T.R. (Supp.)50.

(2) C.A.S. 883-392/66 dt. 4-8-1969.

(4) 34 I.T.R. 98.

451

is a revenue receipt. It would be perfectly legitimate to say that the mere fact that the explanation of the assessee is false does not necessarily give rise to the 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 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 present case, it was neither suggested before the High Court nor has it been contended before us that apart from the falsity of the explanation given by the assessee there was cogent material or evidence from which it could be inferred that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars in respect of the same and that the disputed amount was a revenue receipt. The question was, therefore, rightly answered by the High Court.

The appeal fails and it is dismissed with costs.

V.P.S.						  Appeal
dismissed.
4 5 2