9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income by disclosing prize money in Part IV of his return. 2. Whether there was gross or willful neglect or fraud by the assessee, justifying the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars of Income: The assessee claimed that a receipt of Rs. 44,239 was prize money from a crossword puzzle competition and thus casual income, not taxable. However, investigations revealed that the competition was a hoax designed to legitimize unaccounted money. The Tribunal initially held that no penalty was leviable because the assessee disclosed the amount in Part IV of his return, thus not concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. However, the High Court found this view unsustainable, emphasizing that the statement in Part IV was factually false and intended to mislead the authorities. The court stated, "It is not possible to comprehend how the assessee can claim immunity by falsely indicating in Part IV of his return that he had earned an income of casual nature by way of winning a prize in a competition." 2. Gross or Willful Neglect or Fraud: The Tribunal also held that there was no gross or willful neglect or fraud on the part of the assessee, thus no penalty was justified under the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c). The High Court disagreed, noting that the assessee's actions constituted a deliberate attempt to evade tax by showing unaccounted income as prize money. The court remarked, "The assessee attempted to practice a fraud and to mislead the Revenue authorities by showing this income in Part IV of his return." The court further elaborated that the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) prescribes a rebuttable presumption of concealment when the assessed income is significantly higher than the returned income. The assessee failed to rebut this presumption, as he did not provide any evidence to prove that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from fraud or gross or willful neglect. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was patently an impossible view. The assessee's disclosure in Part IV of his return was false and fraudulent, intended to mislead the authorities. The court held that the assessee concealed his income and furnished inaccurate particulars thereof, thus attracting penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The court answered both the questions referred to it in the negative, against the assessee, and upheld the levy of penalty. The reference was answered accordingly with costs.
|
