| Case ID |
0510136a-a212-4fa5-8c7c-4238ddd58019 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-2741 of 2016 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 01, 1988 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 01, 1988 |
| Decision |
The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal, confirming that the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act was justified. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not discharged the burden of proving that the disputed amount did not represent concealed income. The court emphasized that the initial finding in the penalty proceedings must establish that the disputed amount was indeed income, and the burden then shifts to the assessee to show that any failure to report this income was not due to fraud or gross neglect. The assessee's explanation regarding notional depreciation was rejected as unacceptable, leading to the conclusion that the assessee wilfully failed to return the correct income. |
| Summary |
In the case of Thakur Veerpal Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Madhya Pradesh High Court addressed the issue of penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for concealing income. The court reviewed the facts where the assessee claimed a notional depreciation from his truck plying business as justification for investments in a house property. However, the Tribunal determined that the assessee failed to provide adequate evidence to support this claim. The decision highlights the importance of the burden of proof in tax proceedings, particularly regarding whether the undisclosed income was concealed. The ruling affirms that taxpayers must substantiate their claims with credible evidence to avoid penalties and underscores the implications of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c), which presumes concealment of income when the reported income is significantly lower than the assessed income. This case serves as a critical reference for tax professionals and advocates dealing with income tax assessments and penalties. |
| Court |
Madhya Pradesh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
B.C. Varma,
K.K. Adhikari
|
| Lawyers |
B.L. Nema,
B.K. Rawat
|
| Petitioners |
Thakur Veerpal Singh
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Citations |
1988 SLD 1733,
(1988) 172 ITR 238
|
| Other Citations |
Hansraj Aggarwal v. Addl. C1T [1979] 119 ITR 688 (MP),
Addl. CIT v. Meghraj Arjundas [Misc. Civil Case No. 194 of 1979, 20-4-1982],
CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC),
Bapulal Ramchandra v. CIT [1982] 137 ITR 23 (MP),
Addl. CIT v. Karnail Singh V. Kaleran [1974] 94 ITR 505 (Punj. & Har.),
Bamlal Agarwal v. CIT [1982] 134 ITR 342 (MP),
CIT v. Pradeep Shantaram Padgaonkar [1983] 143 ITR 785 (MP),
Mahammad Shabbir v. CIT [1984] 148 ITR 111 (MP),
CIT v. Basanta Kumar Agarwalla [1983] 140 ITR 418 (Gauhati),
CIT v. Gostoami Smt. Chandralata Bahuji [1980] 125 ITR 700 (Raj.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
271(1)(c)
|