| Case ID |
02ebeebf-99fd-4cfb-b18f-3c2053c1b38c |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT REFERENCE No. 98 OF 1962 |
| Decision Date |
May 11, 1966 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court concluded that the income-tax authorities were not justified in imposing a penalty on the assessee under section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The tribunal found that the authorities failed to prove that the sum of Rs. 87,000 represented income from an undisclosed source and that the assessee had concealed particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. The onus was on the revenue to establish the guilt of the assessee, and the mere falsity of the explanation provided by the assessee was insufficient to warrant the imposition of a penalty. The court determined that there must be evidence to substantiate that there was income and that the assessee concealed or misrepresented it. |
| Summary |
The case revolves around the imposition of a penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, where the Commissioner of Income Tax contended that Anwar Ali, a partner in a firm, concealed income by failing to disclose a cash deposit of Rs. 87,000 in his assessment. The Income-tax Officer discovered the deposit during scrutiny and deemed it undisclosed income, leading to a penalty. The tribunal upheld this view, but the High Court found that the authorities did not adequately prove that the deposit was income or that Anwar Ali concealed it. The judgment highlighted the importance of the revenue's burden of proof in penalty cases, reiterating that a mere false explanation does not automatically equate to concealment of income. The case emphasizes the critical nature of evidence in tax law and the principle that penalties should not be imposed without clear proof of wrongdoing. |
| Court |
Calcutta High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
A.N. Ray,
D. Basu
|
| Lawyers |
Counsel for the revenue
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Respondents |
Anwar Ali
|
| Citations |
1967 SLD 467,
(1967) 65 ITR 95
|
| Other Citations |
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gokuldas Harivallabhdas [1958] 34 ITR 98,
Lal Chand Gopal Das v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1963] 48 ITR 324,
Haji Abdul Rahman v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1965] 56 ITR 172,
Moman Ram Ram Kumar v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1966] 59 ITR 135,
P.K. Kalaswami Nadar v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1962] 46 ITR 1056,
M. Hussain Ali & Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1965] 58 ITR 787,
Gnanambika Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1965] 58 ITR 802,
A.V. Thomas & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1966] 59 ITR 499,
Commissioner of Income-tax v. L.H. Vora [1965] 56 ITR 126,
Murlidhar Tejpal v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1961] 42 ITR 129,
Khemraj Chagganlal v. Commissioner of Income Tax [1960] 38 ITR 523
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1922
|
| Sections |
28(1)(c),
34,
37,
29
|