S.271(c)- peanty for concealment of income- imposition of.

Court :
Supreme Cpurt

Brief :
Existence of mens rea is essentially a question of fact. The Tribunal alone, as the highest authority empowered to determine the question of fact, would be entitled to go thereinto. However, the same would not mean that the High Court will have no jurisdiction in this behalf. The High Court, it is well-known, should not ordinarily disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. Question of law should generally arise only accepting the finding of fact to be correct. [Para 9] The expression 'conceal' signifies a deliberate act of omission on the part of the assessee. Such deliberate act must be either for the purpose of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. [Para 15] The order imposing penalty is quasi-criminal in nature and, thus, burden lies on the department to establish that the assessee had concealed his income. Since burden of proof in penalty proceeding varies from that in the assessment proceeding, a finding in an assessment proceeding that a particular receipt is income cannot automatically be adopted, though a finding in the assessment proceeding constitute good evidence in the penalty proceeding. In the penalty proceedings, thus, the authorities must consider the matter afresh as the question has to be considered from a different angle. [Para 18] 'Concealment of income' and 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars' carry different connotations. Concealment refers to deliberate act on the part of the assessee. A mere omission or negligence would not constitute a deliberate act of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi. [Para 22]

Citation :
T. Ashok Pai. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax , Bangalore CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2747 OF 2007 DECIDED ON 18-5-2007