COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX-I, AHMEDABAD vs. GOLD COIN HEALTH FOOD PVT. LTD.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 5065/2008Supreme Court[2008] 12 S.C.R. 17918 August 2008Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM, AFTAB ALAM17 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the term 'income' under Section 271(1)(c) includes losses, as established in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Delhi v. Harprasad & Co. P Ltd. The Court further held that Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c) is clarificatory in nature and not substantive, and therefore, it has retrospective effect. The amendment was intended to make explicit what was already implicit, clarifying that penalty is leviable not only when a returned loss becomes positive income after additions, but also when additions reduce the returned loss, even if the assessed income remains a loss. The Court distinguished the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Prithipal Singh and Co. as it related to a period before the existence of Explanation 4. The Court relied on the Wanchoo Committee's recommendations and Circular No.204 dated 24.01.1976 to support its reasoning. The Court also noted that the applicable provision is the law as it existed on the date of filing the return. The appeals were disposed of, with the Court noting that in one specific appeal, the Revenue would not demand penalty even if they succeeded.

What were the facts?

The Supreme Court was considering appeals concerning the applicability of an amendment to Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, introduced by the Finance Act, 2002. The core issue was whether this amendment, which dealt with the levy of penalty for concealment of income, should be applied retrospectively. The Revenue argued that the amendment was clarificatory and should apply even to assessments prior to its enactment, while the Assessee contended that the amendment was substantive and not retrospective. The judgment discusses the interpretation of 'income' to include losses and the intent behind the amendment in penalizing concealment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the term 'income' as used in Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, includes losses, for the purpose of levying penalty. 2. Whether the amendment to Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, introduced by the Finance Act, 2002, is clarificatory or substantive in nature, and if it has retrospective effect. Assessee's contentions: The amendment and Explanation 4(a) enlarged the scope for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and did not operate retrospectively. There was nothing in the amended Section 271(1)(c) to suggest retrospective operation. Revenue's contentions: The purpose of Section 271(1)(c) is to penalize concealment of income, irrespective of whether the returned income was a profit or loss. The word 'any' in Section 271(1)(c) made it clear that penalty was leviable even if no tax was payable. The amendment was clarificatory, not substantive, and applied to all assessments prior to assessment year 2003-04, as it clarified the position that penalty was leviable where addition of concealed income reduced the returned loss.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 72

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 229 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

[2008] 12 S. C.R. 179 COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX-I, AHMEDABAD A v. GOLD COIN HEALTH FOOD PVT. LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 5065 of 2008) AUGUST 18, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB . ALAM, JJ.] B Income Tax Act, 1961; s. 271(1)(c) with amendment in Explanation 4 to s.271(1) (c) (iii) introduced by Finance Act, c 2002: Returned income - Loss/profit - Levy of penalty - Held: Term 'income' also includes losses - Explanation 4 to s. 271 (1 )(c) (iii) is clarificatory in nature and not substantive and has to be construed accordingly - Recommendation of Wanchoo D Committee and relevant circular makes the position clear that penalty in terms of amendment leviable where addition of con- cealed income reduces the returned loss - In the facts and circumstances of the case, the amendment could be given :h retrospective effect - Interpretation of Statutes. E Amendment in the Statute - Effe9t of, effective date - Discussed.

The question which arose for determination in these appeals was about the correctness of the impugned judg- F ment of the Division Bench of the High Court about the applicability of the amendment as introduced by Finance Act, 2002 in Explana

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →