Case Law Details
CASE LAWS DETAILS
DECIDED BY: ITAT, MUMBAI `B’ BENCH MUMBAI , IN THE CASE OF: Chem pure Vs. ITO, APPEAL NO: ITA Nos. 451 to 453/M/2006, DECIDED ON May 7, 2010 4.
RELEVANT EXTRACTS:
13. A conspectus of the Explanation makes it clear that the statute visualized the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings to be wholly distinct and independent of each other. In essence, the Explanation is a rule of evidence. Presumptions which are rebuttable in nature are available to be drawn. The initial burden of discharging the onus of rebuttal is on the assessee. The rationale behind this view is that the basic facts are within the special knowledge of the assessee. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, gives statutory recognition to this universally accepted rule of evidence. There is no discretion conferred on the Assessing Officer as to whether he can invoke the Explanation or not. Explanation 1 comes into operation when, in respect of any facts material to the computation of total income of any person, there is failure to offer an explanation or an explanation is offered which is found to be false by the Assessing Officer or the first appellate authority, or an explanation is offered which is not substantiated. In such a case, the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income is deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. As per the provision of Explanation 1, the onus to establish that the explanation offered was bona fide and all facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his income have been disclosed by him will be on the person charged with concealment. The explanation of the assessee for the purpose of avoidance of penalty must be an acceptable explanation; it should not be a fantastic or fanciful one. As indicated above, the consequence follows as a matter of law. The burden is on the assessee. If he fails to discharge that burden, the presumption that he had concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof is available to be drawn. The issue relating to “bonafide” and “false” returns in imposing penalty on the assessee under section 43 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, and section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 have been examined by the Apex Court in the case of Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. V .Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax [1980] 4 Taxman 44 (SC), 124 ITR 15 (SC). Facts in brief of this case were that the assessee-company effected certain transactions of sale of cement in accordance with the provisions of the Cement Control Order during the assessment period 1-8-1971 to 31-7-1972. The amount of freight included in the “free on rail destinations railway station” was paid by the purchasers and hence the assessee deducted from the price shown in the invoices sent to the purchasers. In the course of its assessment to sales tax under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the assessee did not include the said amount of freight in its taxable turnover on the ground that it did not form part of the sale price. In his two separate assessment orders, one under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the other under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, the Assistant Commissioner, however, included the same in the taxable turnover for levying tax. He also imposed heavy penalty on account of the assessee’s failure to disclose the same in its taxable returns. On direct appeal to the Supreme Court held as under:-.
“5. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the Assistant Commissioner was right in imposing penalty on the assessee for not showing the amount of freight as forming part of the taxable turnover in its returns. The penalty was imposed under section 43 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, on the ground that the assessee had furnished false returns by not including the amount of freight in the taxable turnover disclosed in the returns. Now, it is difficult to see how the assessee could be said to have filed “false” returns, when what the assessee did, namely, not including the amount of freight in the taxable turnover, was under a bona fide belief that the amount of freight did not form part of the sale price and was not includible in the taxable turnover. The contention of the assessee throughout was that on a proper construction of the definition of “sale price” in section 2(o) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, and section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the amount of freight did not fall within the definition and was not liable to be included in the taxable turnover. This was the reason why the assessee did not include the amount of freight in the taxable turnover in the returns filed by it. Now, it cannot be said that this was a frivolous contention taken up merely for the purpose of avoiding liability to pay tax. It was a highly arguable contention which required serious consideration by the court and the belief entertained by the assessee that it was not liable to include the amount of freight in the taxable turnover, could not be said to be mala fide or unreasonable. What section 43 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, requires is that the assessee should have filed a “false” return and a return cannot be said to be “false” unless there is an element of deliberateness in it. It is possible that even where the incorrectness of the return is claimed to be due to want of care on the part of the assessee and there is no reasonable explanation forthcoming from the assessee for such want of care, the court may, in a given case, infer deliberateness and the return may be liable to be branded as a false return. But where the assessee does not include a particular item in the taxable turnover under a bona fide belief that he is not liable so to include it, it would not be right to condemn the return as a “false” return inviting imposition of penalty. This view which is being taken by us is supported by the decision of this Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1970] 25 STC 211, where it has been held that: “…Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute….” It is elementary that section 43 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, providing for imposition of penalty is penal in character and unless the filing of an inaccurate return is accompanied by a guilty mind, the section cannot be invoked for imposing penalty. If the view canvassed on behalf of the revenue were accepted, the result would be that even if the assessee raises a bona fide contention that a particular item is not liable to be included in the taxable turnover, he would have to show it as forming part of the taxable turnover in his return and pay tax upon it on pain of being held liable for penalty in case his contention is ultimately found by the Court to be not acceptable. That surely could never have been intended by the Legislature.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
