My explanation for a cash deposit was rejected in the assessment and an addition was made — does that by itself mean penalty for concealment follows?
No. The Supreme Court held that penalty proceedings are penal in character and separate from the assessment, so the department must prove that the disputed amount was in fact the assessee's income and that he consciously concealed it or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. A finding in the assessment that the explanation is false is good evidence but not conclusive. Where there was nothing beyond the falsity of the explanation, the penalty of Rs 66,000 on an unexplained deposit of Rs 87,000 could not stand and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India — A.N. Grover, J.C. Shah and K.S. Hegde JJ (judgment by Grover J)) on 1970-04-29, reported as 1970 AIR 1782; 1971 SCR (1) 446; 1970 SCC (2) 185. It bears on section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Penalty and Cash Credits & Unexplained Money matters.
This is the source of the rule that an addition does not automatically carry a penalty. It settles a High Court conflict — approving the Bombay, Gujarat and Patna line and disapproving the Allahabad view that a false explanation is itself concealment — and it fixes where the burden sits and how heavy it is. Practitioners still open a concealment reply with Anwar Ali. Read it with care on the statute, though: Parliament answered it by inserting the Explanation to section 271(1)(c), which shifts the onus to the assessee in stated circumstances, and the penalty provisions have since moved to sections 270A and 271AAC. What survives intact is the reasoning that assessment findings are evidence, not proof, and that conscious concealment must be established on the entirety of circumstances.
Binding on every court and authority in India.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
For assessment year 1947-48, the previous year ending 31 March 1947, the assessee was a partner in a Calcutta firm. While making the assessment the Income-tax Officer discovered an undisclosed account with the Central Bank of India Ltd at Bettiah, Bihar, in which a cash deposit of Rs 87,000 had been made on 21 November 1946. The assessee explained that during the communal riots in Bihar in 1946 his relations became panicky and entrusted their cash to him for safe custody, and he set out the amounts said to have come from his cousin, his late father, another cousin, his mother, sister, wife and brother's wife. He had put the money into a fixed deposit in the joint names of himself and his minor sons. The Income-tax Officer rejected the explanation, held the Rs 87,000 to be income from undisclosed sources and added it to his personal assessment; the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal upheld the addition. Penalty proceedings followed and a penalty of Rs 66,000 was imposed under section 28(1)(c) of the 1922 Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner first reduced it by Rs 22,000, then rectified his order and restored the full Rs 66,000. The Tribunal cancelled the penalty and the Calcutta High Court answered the reference in favour of the assessee.
The Revenue's appeal was dismissed with costs; the penalty could not be sustained. Although penalty proceedings fall within the expression 'assessment' and penalty has been described as an additional tax, one of the principal objects of the provision is to deter recurrence of default, and the section is penal in the sense that its consequences are meant to be an effective deterrent. The proceedings are therefore of a penal nature. The gist of the offence being concealment of particulars of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the department must establish that the receipt in dispute constitutes the assessee's income. Where the only material is an explanation found to be false, it does not follow that the receipt is taxable income. The assessment finding that the explanation was false and the amount was income is good evidence but not conclusive. Before penalty can be imposed, the entirety of the circumstances must reasonably point to the conclusion that the disputed amount represented income and that the assessee consciously concealed particulars or deliberately furnished inaccurate ones. Here nothing beyond the falsity of the explanation was suggested, so the High Court had answered the reference correctly.
The Court began with the character of the proceeding, because the burden of proof depends on it. The argument that there is no essential difference between tax and penalty, both being part of the machinery of assessment, rested on observations in C.A. Abraham; but in that case the Court was not called on to decide whether penalty proceedings are penal or quasi-penal, and the remarks about additional tax were made in a different context and for a different purpose. Deterrence being a principal object of the provision, its consequences are intended to stop practices the legislature considers against the public interest, and the proceeding is penal. That conclusion is consistent with sales tax law, where an order imposing penalty is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding (Hindustan Steel v State of Orissa), and with the English position (Fattorini). Once the proceeding is penal, the department carries the burden of proving that the amount is a revenue receipt. The Court adopted Chagla CJ's reasoning in Gokuldas Harivallabhdas: since the gist of the offence is concealment, the department must establish that the receipt constitutes income, and disbelieving the assessee proves only that his explanation failed, not that the money was income. Rejection of an explanation in the assessment does not, therefore, discharge the department's burden in the penalty proceeding; the assessment finding is admissible and good evidence, but the penalty must rest on the entirety of the circumstances pointing to income and to conscious concealment.
It would be perfectly legitimate to say that the mere fact that the explanation of the assessee is false does not necessarily give rise to the inference that the disputed amount represents income.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. The Supreme Court held that penalty proceedings are penal in character and separate from the assessment, so the department must prove that the disputed amount was in fact the assessee's income and that he consciously concealed it or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. A finding in the assessment that the explanation is false is good evidence but not conclusive. Where there was nothing beyond the falsity of the explanation, the penalty of Rs 66,000 on an unexplained deposit of Rs 87,000 could not stand and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. This was decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India — A.N. Grover, J.C. Shah and K.S. Hegde JJ (judgment by Grover J)) and bears on section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as 1970 AIR 1782; 1971 SCR (1) 446; 1970 SCC (2) 185. This is the source of the rule that an addition does not automatically carry a penalty. It settles a High Court conflict — approving the Bombay, Gujarat and Patna line and disapproving the Allahabad view that a false explanation is itself concealment — and it fixes where the burden sits and how heavy it is. Practitioners still open a concealment reply with Anwar Ali. Read it with care on the statute, though: Parliament answered it by inserting the Explanation to section 271(1)(c), which shifts the onus to the assessee in stated circumstances, and the penalty provisions have since moved to sections 270A and 271AAC. What survives intact is the reasoning that assessment findings are evidence, not proof, and that conscious concealment must be established on the entirety of circumstances. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Answer the penalty notice separately from the quantum appeal, and say in terms that the assessment finding is evidence but not conclusive of concealment.
For assessment year 1947-48, the previous year ending 31 March 1947, the assessee was a partner in a Calcutta firm. While making the assessment the Income-tax Officer discovered an undisclosed account with the Central Bank of India Ltd at Bettiah, Bihar, in which a cash deposit of Rs 87,000 had been made on 21 November 1946. The assessee explained that during the communal riots in Bihar in 1946 his relations became panicky and entrusted their cash to him for safe custody, and he set out the amounts said to have come from his cousin, his late father, another cousin, his mother, sister, wife and brother's wife. He had put the money into a fixed deposit in the joint names of himself and his minor sons. The Income-tax Officer rejected the explanation, held the Rs 87,000 to be income from undisclosed sources and added it to his personal assessment; the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal upheld the addition. Penalty proceedings followed and a penalty of Rs 66,000 was imposed under section 28(1)(c) of the 1922 Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner first reduced it by Rs 22,000, then rectified his order and restored the full Rs 66,000. The Tribunal cancelled the penalty and the Calcutta High Court answered the reference in favour of the assessee. The matter was decided on 1970-04-29 by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India — A.N. Grover, J.C. Shah and K.S. Hegde JJ (judgment by Grover J)). On those facts the Supreme Court held as follows. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed with costs; the penalty could not be sustained. Although penalty proceedings fall within the expression 'assessment' and penalty has been described as an additional tax, one of the principal objects of the provision is to deter recurrence of default, and the section is penal in the sense that its consequences are meant to be an effective deterrent. The proceedings are therefore of a penal nature. The gist of the offence being concealment of particulars of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the department must establish that the receipt in dispute constitutes the assessee's income. Where the only material is an explanation found to be false, it does not follow that the receipt is taxable income. The assessment finding that the explanation was false and the amount was income is good evidence but not conclusive. Before penalty can be imposed, the entirety of the circumstances must reasonably point to the conclusion that the disputed amount represented income and that the assessee consciously concealed particulars or deliberately furnished inaccurate ones. Here nothing beyond the falsity of the explanation was suggested, so the High Court had answered the reference correctly.
The Court began with the character of the proceeding, because the burden of proof depends on it. The argument that there is no essential difference between tax and penalty, both being part of the machinery of assessment, rested on observations in C.A. Abraham; but in that case the Court was not called on to decide whether penalty proceedings are penal or quasi-penal, and the remarks about additional tax were made in a different context and for a different purpose. Deterrence being a principal object of the provision, its consequences are intended to stop practices the legislature considers against the public interest, and the proceeding is penal. That conclusion is consistent with sales tax law, where an order imposing penalty is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding (Hindustan Steel v State of Orissa), and with the English position (Fattorini). Once the proceeding is penal, the department carries the burden of proving that the amount is a revenue receipt. The Court adopted Chagla CJ's reasoning in Gokuldas Harivallabhdas: since the gist of the offence is concealment, the department must establish that the receipt constitutes income, and disbelieving the assessee proves only that his explanation failed, not that the money was income. Rejection of an explanation in the assessment does not, therefore, discharge the department's burden in the penalty proceeding; the assessment finding is admissible and good evidence, but the penalty must rest on the entirety of the circumstances pointing to income and to conscious concealment. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "It would be perfectly legitimate to say that the mere fact that the explanation of the assessee is false does not necessarily give rise to the inference that the disputed amount represents income."
It was decided by the Supreme Court on 1970-04-29 and is reported as 1970 AIR 1782; 1971 SCR (1) 446; 1970 SCC (2) 185. Binding on every court and authority in India. A Supreme Court decision binds every assessing officer, every Commissioner (Appeals), every bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and every High Court in India. An officer who declines to follow it is acting contrary to law, and that refusal is itself a ground of appeal. On section 271(1)(c), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed with costs; the penalty could not be sustained. Although penalty proceedings fall within the expression 'assessment' and penalty has been described as an additional tax, one of the principal objects of the provision is to deter recurrence of default, and the section is penal in the sense that its consequences are meant to be an effective deterrent. The proceedings are therefore of a penal nature. The gist of the offence being concealment of particulars of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the department must establish that the receipt in dispute constitutes the assessee's income. Where the only material is an explanation found to be false, it does not follow that the receipt is taxable income. The assessment finding that the explanation was false and the amount was income is good evidence but not conclusive. Before penalty can be imposed, the entirety of the circumstances must reasonably point to the conclusion that the disputed amount represented income and that the assessee consciously concealed particulars or deliberately furnished inaccurate ones. Here nothing beyond the falsity of the explanation was suggested, so the High Court had answered the reference correctly. It arises in Penalty and Cash Credits & Unexplained Money matters, on section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Supreme Court of India — A.N. Grover, J.C. Shah and K.S. Hegde JJ (judgment by Grover J). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Force the department to point to material beyond the rejection of your explanation; if the only material is the falsity of the explanation, say so on the record. Preserve the evidence you gave on the source at assessment stage — the entirety of circumstances is the test, and the penalty file is judged on all of it. Check which penalty provision applies to your year before relying on this alone; the statutory Explanations and sections 270A and 271AAC alter the onus that Anwar Ali placed on the department.
Superseded by amendment. The reasoning is heavily relied on — the source page records over 570 citing decisions — but its practical effect on the burden of proof was met by Parliament through the Explanations to section 271(1)(c), which deem concealment in stated circumstances and place the onus on the assessee. For assessment year 2017-18 onwards, section 270A governs under-reporting and misreporting instead. Assessed from the judgment, its citator entries and the statutory scheme; no later decision was read. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The judgment construes section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922; section 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act is listed as the corresponding provision, and the batch line's second entry naming the 1922 Act provision has been dropped from the sections list as it is not a 1961 Act section. The citation list carried by the source is short and gives no ITR reference, so the ITR citation for this judgment is not recorded here. The Court did not disturb the addition itself, only the penalty. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The Revenue's appeal was dismissed with costs; the penalty could not be sustained. Although penalty proceedings fall within the expression 'assessment' and penalty has been described as an additional tax, one of the principal objects of the provision is to deter recurrence of default, and the section is penal in the sense that its consequences are meant to be an effective deterrent. The proceedings are therefore of a penal nature. The gist of the offence being concealment of particulars of income or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the department must establish that the receipt in dispute constitutes the assessee's income. Where the only material is an explanation found to be false, it does not follow that the receipt is taxable income. The assessment finding that the explanation was false and the amount was income is good evidence but not conclusive. Before penalty can be imposed, the entirety of the circumstances must reasonably point to the conclusion that the disputed amount represented income and that the assessee consciously concealed particulars or deliberately furnished inaccurate ones. Here nothing beyond the falsity of the explanation was suggested, so the High Court had answered the reference correctly.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
Valuables were found at my premises and I say they are not mine. Who has to prove ownership?
Is penalty under s.271(1)(c) criminal, quasi-criminal or civil?
The officer disallowed your claim. Does a disallowance automatically bring penalty with it?
The penalty notice does not say whether I concealed income or filed inaccurate particulars. Does that matter?