COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS vs. K.R. SADAYAPPAN

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1248/1978Supreme Court[1990] 3 S.C.R. 25510 July 1990Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI, K.N. SAIKIA OF INCOME8 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

For the assessment year 1966-67, the assessee initially declared no loss, then a revised return showed a net loss of Rs. 9,490. Wealth statements did not disclose investment in land. Investigations revealed the assessee, along with others, purchased a plot of land in his son's name for a total consideration of Rs. 1,40,000, with an 'on-money' payment of Rs. 18,750. The assessee could not provide evidence for the nature and source of this investment. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) treated Rs. 18,750 as undisclosed income and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) imposed a penalty equal to the concealed income, holding the assessee failed to discharge the burden under the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal set aside the penalty, finding no false particulars were filed and the assessee was not wilfully negligent or fraudulent. The High Court, in appeal, held no question of law arose as there was no proof the Rs. 18,750 represented income of the relevant year.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in not correctly applying the principles of law laid down in C.I.T. v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose to the facts of the case. The Court clarified that the presumption raised against the assessee under the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) (where returned income is less than 80% of assessed income) is a rebuttable presumption. While the Tribunal accepted the falsity of the assessee's explanation for the 'on-money' payment (Rs. 18,750), it failed to recognize that this falsity, coupled with the presumption of fraud or wilful neglect, shifted the onus to the assessee to provide cogent and reliable material to rebut this presumption. The Court found that no such attempt was made by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the penalty claim. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed a reference on the question of law to the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee had not filed any incorrect particulars or concealed income, thereby setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the presumption raised by the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) where returned income is less than 80% of assessed income. Assessee's contentions (as inferred from Tribunal's reasoning and High Court's observation): The assessee had not provided false or different particulars about the property in his return or during assessment proceedings. The assessee accepted the actual consideration was Rs. 1,40,000, and the rejection of his explanation for the source of funds did not automatically mean the addition represented concealed income. Revenue's contentions (as inferred from the judgment): The assessee failed to discharge the burden cast upon him by the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) by not proving that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from fraud or gross/wilful neglect. The falsity of the assessee's explanation regarding the source of the 'on-money' payment was established, leading to a presumption of concealment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 256(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS v. K.R. SADAYAPPAN JULY 10, 1990 A [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI. CJ AND K.N. SAIKIA, J.] B 'y Income Tax Act, 1961: s. 271( l)(c)-Explanation (introduced by Finance Act, 1964)-Deemed concealment of income-Total income returned less than 80 per cent of the total income assessed-Rebut/able presumption raised against the assessee-Validity of.

Under the Explanation added to s. 27l(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by the Finance Act, 1964, the assessee, in a case where the total income returned was less than 80 per cent of the total income assessed, was to be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income unless he proved that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or gross or wilful neglect on his part.

In his return of income for the assessment year 1966-67 the assessee-respondent declared certain loss. The wealth statements called for did not disclose investment in lands. Later it was found that he had purchased a plot in his son's name. In the assessment it was stated that c D the total consideration was Rs.80,000 out of which Rs.25,000 was the E payment in respect of the portion purchased fo

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 24,918 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →