| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
October 18, 2008 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
Held by 3 Judge Bench in the context of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 {which corresponds to s. 271 (1) (c)} that:
(i) In Dilip Shroff vs. JCIT, the SC held that the order imposing penalty was quasi-criminal in nature and thus the burden lies on the department to establish that the assessee had consciously concealed his income. This view is not correct.
(ii) The object behind enactment of s. 271 (1) (c) read with Explanations indicate that the said section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue and they create the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing return. The penalty under that provision is a civil liability. Wilful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability unlike the matter of prosecution under Section 276C.
(iii) Dilp N. Shroff‘s case (supra) has not considered the effect and relevance of s. 276C.
(iv) It cannot be said that the absence of specific reference to mens rea is a case of casus omissus. The law on two principles of construction – one relating to casus omissus and the other in regard to reading the statute as a whole has been considered in detail.
Related Posts:
- In Re: Guidelines For Court Functioning Through Video Conferencing During Covid-19 Pandemic (Supreme… Every individual and institution is expected to cooperate in the implementation of measures designed to reduce the transmission of the virus. The scaling down conventional operations within the precincts of courts is a measure in that direction. Access to justice is fundamental to preserve the rule of law in the…
- Raj Pal Singh vs. CIT (Supreme Court) For chargeability of income-tax, the income ought to have either arrived or accrued. In the matter of acquisition of land under the Act of 1894, taking over of possession before arrival of relevant stage for such taking over may give rise to a potential right in the owner of the…
- UOI vs. P. D. Sunny (Supreme Court) There shall be ex-parte ad-interim stay of the impugned judgment and order(s) passed in the aforesaid writ petitions and of further proceedings before the High Court(s), in view of the stand taken by the Government of India through learned Solicitor General, before us, that the Government is fully conscious of…
- Ramnath & Co vs. CIT (Supreme Court) The principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SCC 1, when applied to incentive provisions like those for deduction, would also be that the burden lies on the assessee to prove its applicability to his case; and if there be any ambiguity in the deduction…
- PILCOM vs. CIT (Supreme Court) The obligation to deduct Tax at Source under Section 194E of the Act is not affected by the DTAA and in case the exigibility to tax is disputed by the assesse on whose account the deduction is made, the benefit of DTAA can be pleaded and if the case is…
- H. S. Ramchandra Rao vs. CIT (Supreme Court) The substance of the admission is that the appellant was holding the post of Secretary of the Institution [Paramahamsa Foundation (R) Trust] until 1996 but he left the institution after new members were elected as the managing committee. That being the case, the question of appellant invoking the principle of…
[…] The judgement of the Supreme Court in UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors 174 TM 571 fortifies the interpretation that where the assessee offers an explanation, the onus is […]