Law:

Section:

Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Assessment years 1964-65 to 1967-68 - Whether concealment could be said to have been established where assessee had voluntarily disclosed income under Voluntary Disclosure Act, 1976 without paying tax thereon - Held, yes - Whether where difference between income originally assessed and income returned was more than 20 per cent, onus of proof lay on assessee, and Tribunal erred in casting onus of proof on department while cancelling penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) - Held, yes Section 14 of the Voluntary Disclosure Act, 1976 - Voluntary disclosure - Penalty not imposable - Whether assessee was entitled to benefit of section 14 where it failed to pay tax as contemplated under Act - Held, no FACTS For the assessment years 1964-65 to 1967-68, the assessments were completed by the ITO. Subsequently, as a result of raid conducted on the assessee's premises, certain documents were seized. Before any further proceedings could be taken, the assessee filed revised return under section 14(1) of the Voluntary Disclosure Act, disclosing concealed income in each of the aforesaid assessment years. The assessee, however, did not pay the tax in terms of the said provision while the ITO accepted the disclosure and passed assessment orders. The IAC did not extend the benefit of immunity contemplated under section 14(5) from the levy of penalty on the ground that full tax had not been paid. He therefore, levied penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Commissioner (Appeals), however, cancelled the imposition of penalties. The Tribunal confirmed the orders of cancellation placing the onus of proof on the department. On reference: HELD In the instant case the Tribunal did not even refer to the Explanation to section 271(1)(c). It was in the absence of this reference that the Tribunal wrongly cast the onus of proof on the department. Furthermore, the other factors which were taken into consideration were not relevant to the issue. The difference between the income assessed originally and the income returned was more than 20 per cent. The onus of proof, therefore, was clearly on the…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492