COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MUSSADILAL RAM BHAROSE

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2083/1972Supreme Court[1987] 2 S.C.R. 6728 January 1987Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI, S. NATARAJAN OF11 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Income-Tax Officer rejected the assessee's account books for assessment year 1965-66 due to unverified sales and expenses and a low profit margin, estimating the profit at 8% and total income at Rs. 60,936. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed this order. As the returned income was less than 80% of the assessed income, a penalty notice was issued under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274. The assessee contended that they did not conceal income, relied on their books, and the difference did not arise from fraud or gross neglect. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected these arguments and levied a penalty of Rs. 8,300. The Tribunal cancelled the penalty, determining the income at Rs. 50,750, finding the assessee had honestly maintained books and was not grossly or wilfully negligent. The revenue's application for a reference to the High Court was rejected by the Tribunal and subsequently by the High Court, both deeming the Tribunal's finding of honest belief and lack of gross negligence as a finding of fact.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) creates a rebuttable presumption against the assessee when the returned income is less than 80% of the assessed income. The onus shifts to the assessee to prove that the failure to file a correct return did not arise from fraud or gross or wilful neglect. However, this onus is rebuttable. If the fact-finding body, like the Tribunal, is satisfied by the evidence on record that the assessee was not guilty of fraud or gross or wilful neglect, and the revenue has not adduced further evidence to disprove this, then the assessee cannot be brought within the mischief of section 271(1)(c). The Court found that the Tribunal had considered the relevant principles of law and judged the facts on record, concluding that the assessee had discharged the onus. Therefore, the Tribunal's finding that the assessee acted honestly was a conclusion of fact, and no question of law arose for reference to the High Court. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in cancelling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by holding that the assessee did not conceal particulars of income or furnish inaccurate particulars, despite the returned income being less than 80% of the assessed income. Assessee's contentions: - The assessee did not conceal particulars of income nor furnish inaccurate particulars. - The income returned was based on books of account maintained in the regular course of business. - The assessee could only declare income as reflected in the books of account. - The difference between returned and assessed income did not arise from fraud or gross or unlawful neglect. - The assessee did not fall within the mischief of section 271(1)(c). Revenue's contentions: - The revenue argued that the conditions for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) were met, as the returned income was less than 80% of the assessed income, triggering the Explanation to the section, which shifts the onus on the assessee to prove lack of fraud or gross neglect. The revenue contended that the Tribunal's finding that the assessee acted honestly was a finding of fact, and therefore, no question of law arose for reference.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274,Section 274(2),Section 256(1),Section 256(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. A MUSSADILAL RAM BHAROSE "' ' JANUARY 28, 1987. [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.] B Income Tax Act, 1961, s.271(1) (c)-Assessee-Concealment of ·particulars of his income or furnishing inaccurate particulars-Assessee -; to prove that failure to file correct return of income did not arise from \ fraud, gross or wilful neglect to the satisfaction of assessing authority. -:t The Income-tax Officer rejected the account books of the res- c pondeet-assessee on the ground that the sales and expenses were not verified and. the margin of profit shown was low. He adopted the net " profit rate at 8% thereby computing the profit at Rs.60,800 and the total income was computed at Rs.60936 after addition of Rs. !36 for interest receipts. On appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner con- D firmed this order of the Income-tax Officer. As the total income re- turned was less than 80% of the correct income computed, he held that the case fell within the ambit of s.271( 1) of the Act, and issued a show cause notice under section 274 read with section 271 to the assessee. It was contended on behalf of the assessee before the Appellate As

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 →