COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WEST BENGAL vs. ANWAR ALI

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2560/1966Supreme Court[1971] 1 S.C.R. 44629 April 1970Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: J.C. SHAH, K.S. HEGDE, A.N. GROVER COMMISSIONER OF6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that penalty proceedings under Section 28(1)(c) are of a penal nature, intended as a deterrent against default. While penalty is an additional tax, its purpose is to punish concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Court approved the view that the gist of the offence is concealment or deliberate inaccuracy, requiring the department to establish that the disputed amount constitutes income. The Court clarified that the finding in assessment proceedings, while good evidence, is not conclusive for penalty. The mere falsity of the assessee's explanation does not automatically prove the receipt is taxable income. The entirety of circumstances must reasonably point to the amount being income and the assessee having consciously concealed it or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. In this case, the Court found no cogent material presented by the department, apart from the rejected explanation, to infer concealment or deliberate inaccuracy. Therefore, the High Court's answer was upheld. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Income-tax Officer (ITO) discovered an undisclosed bank account of the assessee, Anwar Ali, containing a deposit of Rs. 87,000. The assessee explained this as cash entrusted for safe custody by relatives due to communal riots. The ITO rejected this explanation, treating the sum as income from an undisclosed source and adding it to the assessee's total income. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld this addition. Subsequently, the ITO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 28(1)(c) and imposed a penalty of Rs. 66,000. The AAC reduced this to Rs. 44,000 but later rectified the order to confirm the original Rs. 66,000. The ITAT, however, held that penalty proceedings were of a criminal nature and the department had not discharged its onus to prove the concealed amount was revenue in nature. The High Court agreed with the ITAT, answering the reference question in the negative, in favour of the assessee. The Revenue appealed to the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether penalty proceedings under Section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, are of a penal nature, and if so, what is the consequent burden of proof on the department? (Question of law turning on Section 28(1)(c)). - Assessee's contention (as per ITAT's view): Penalty proceedings are criminal/penal in nature. The department must prove the concealed amount is revenue and assessable as income, not just that the assessee's explanation was false. - Revenue's contention (implied by appeal): The ITAT erred in holding the onus was not discharged. The falsity of the assessee's explanation, coupled with the addition in assessment, should be sufficient to impose penalty. 2. Whether a finding in assessment proceedings that a receipt is income after rejecting the assessee's explanation as false is conclusive for imposing penalty under Section 28(1)(c)? (Question of mixed law and fact turning on Section 28(1)(c)). - Assessee's contention (as per ITAT's view): The finding in assessment is not conclusive for penalty. The department must provide independent evidence to show the amount represented income and was consciously concealed or inaccurately furnished. - Revenue's contention (implied by appeal): The assessment finding, combined with the rejected explanation, should be sufficient to establish the income and justify the penalty.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 28(1)(c),Section 35

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 92 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

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

446 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WEST BENGAL A v. ANWAR ALJ April 29, 1970 (J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] Income-tax Act (II of 1922), s. 28-Penalty proceedings-Whether of a criniinal nature-,-()nus on deparflnent show a1nount concealed CIS incon1t>. B The Income-tax Officer, while assessing the respondent to tax discover- ed an undisclosed bank account of the respondent for a large sum.

He C did not accept the explanation of the respondent as to the source of the amount and held that it represented income from an undisclosed source.

Therea'fter ne initiated penalty proceedings under s. 28 and imposed a penalty which was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.

In appeal, the Tribunal held that penalty proceedings were of a criminal nature and that the burden lay on the department to show that the amount concealed was of a revenue nature and was assessable as income and that the onus was not discharged in the present case by merely show- D ing that the assessee's explanation was not accepted in the assessment pro- ceedings. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal.

Jn appeal to this Court, HELD . ( 1) Penalty proceedings are include

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 35

All 169 judgments and leading authorities on Section 35 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →