D.M. MANASVI vs. C. I. T., GUJARAT II, AHMEDABAD

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1447/1969Supreme Court[1973] 2 S.C.R. 38919 September 1972Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: K.S. HEGDE, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, HANS RAJ KHANNA10 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, D. M. Manasvi, is an individual whose income from assessment years 1959-60 to 1962-63 is in dispute. The Revenue is the Commissioner of Income Tax. The assessee initially did not disclose income from M/s. Kohinoor Grain Mills Sales Depot (Kohinoor Mills) for the assessment year 1959-60, and for subsequent years, disclosed only 20% as his share of profits. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) determined that Kohinoor Mills was the assessee's sole proprietorship and reopened assessments for the first two years, including the full income from Kohinoor Mills in the assessee's income for all four years. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld this inclusion. The ITO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. As the minimum penalty exceeded Rs. 1,000, the cases were referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC). The IAC levied penalties for all four years. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal, which rejected the contention that penalty proceedings were not validly commenced and that there was no evidence of concealment. The Tribunal granted relief on the quantum of penalty. The Gujarat High Court, on reference, answered two questions in favour of the department. The assessee appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the penalty proceedings were properly commenced. The Court reasoned that the satisfaction of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) or Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) regarding concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, which precedes the issue of notice, is sufficient. The satisfaction can occur during the assessment proceedings, even if the notice is issued subsequently. The reference to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) under Section 274(2) does not invalidate the initiation of proceedings by the ITO. The Court also held that there was sufficient material and evidence before the Tribunal to conclude that the assessee had deliberately concealed particulars of his income. The Tribunal's finding that Kohinoor Mills was controlled by the assessee, that no genuine firm existed, and that the income belonged to the assessee, supported by positive material beyond the mere falsity of the assessee's explanation, led to this conclusion. The Court distinguished the present case from Anwar Ali by emphasizing the presence of positive evidence of a deliberate scheme to conceal income. The appeals were dismissed. The issue of the quantum of penalty was not expressly left undecided but relief was granted by the Tribunal, and the Supreme Court upheld the findings on the substantive issues.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the proceedings for the imposition of penalty were properly commenced in the course of any proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961, as required by Section 271 for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1962-63? (Question of mixed law and fact turning on Section 271 and Section 274(2)). 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material or evidence before the Tribunal to hold that the assessee had deliberately concealed particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income as required by Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1962-63? (Question of mixed law and fact turning on Section 271(1)(c)). Assessee's Contentions: - The penalty proceedings were not validly commenced in the course of proceedings under the Act. - There was no evidence to show the assessee was the owner of Kohinoor Mills and had concealed income. - Relying on Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal IV v. Anwar Ali, the mere falsity of the assessee's explanation does not automatically lead to the inference of concealment. Revenue's Contentions: - The Tribunal correctly held that penalty proceedings were commenced during assessment proceedings. - There was sufficient material and evidence to conclude concealment of income. - The scheme of disguising profits as those of a firm constituted deliberate concealment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274(2),Section 256(1),Section 23(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A NAGESHWARA v. MAHARASHTRA (Dua, J.) D. M. MANASVI v. C. I. T., GUJARAT II, AHMEDABAD September 19, 1972 389- 11 [K. $. HEGDE, P. ]AGANMOHAN REDDY AND H. R. KllANNA, JJ.J ( D E F G II JnconH' TCEx Act, 196 I-Section 271 ( 1) (c)-Scopc of-Satisfactio11 r(·:.:urding 11u1fte'rs iii els. (a) to (c) pre<.'edes the issue of notice-Notice 11t'1'rl nnt he h.:rued in the ,·o•irse of assess111cnr proceedincs-N1J notice f 011te1nplated he/ore arri~·ing at the satisfacrion--Provision for reference to Inspecting Assistant Conunis.sioner does not 1nean proceedings cannot be initiated by /nro111e Tax Officer. \Vhat i" contcmplutcd by clause l1) of section 271, Income Tax: Act. l:J61, is that 1hc Income Ti.ix Officer or the Appellate Assistant C-ommis- ... ioncr shoul<l h:i.vc been s:.tlisfied in the course of proceedings U"lder the ACl regarding n1attcrs mentioned in the clauses of that sub-section.

It is not howcvl!r e'>scntial that notice to the pcrs0!1 piocceded against should have also been i.:;~~uc<l during the course of the ussessn1r:r1t proceedings. S:ilisfac~ion. in the very narui:c of things, precedes the issue of notice and it \\"Ould not be correct to equ

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 →