2014 (1) TMI 1682 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Held that - A.O. has not recorded any satisfaction in the assessment order about the concealment nor followed the procedure under section 274 with reference to the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) whether the notice issued is for the concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Having deleted appropriate paras in the notice, sending a printed form particularly deleting the relevant columns, would not satisfy the requirement of law. Moreover, since the grounds on which assessee has to reply have not been specified, the principles of natural justice has been offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee. Not only that the assessment order indicates that there is no difference between assessed income and returned income. What has been added in the assessment is not the subject matter of penalty. Even though the assessee has filed originally a return, revised return filed by the assessee before the scrutiny proceedings have been conducted, gives rise to a presumption that assessee has bonafidely admitted higher income. Even though found in the course of survey proceedings, A.O. have not stated how the amount was quantified and why the amount has to be considered as concealment of income. It cannot be stated that the amount offered by the assessee can be considered as concealed income in the light of facts of the case. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not imposable on the facts of the case. Even otherwise, assessee having given bonafide explanation that he has offered higher income even though that much income is not taxable, this contention of the assessee was not rebutted. As briefly stated above in the facts, A.O. has neither brought any calculations on record nor mentioned how the amount was quantified. In these set of circumstances, assessee s contention that it had unexplained expenditure in earning that gross receipts cannot be rejected. Therefore, even the provisions of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) come into operation as the assessee s explanation has not been disproved. Therefore, the conditions for imposing penalty does not satisfy. In view of the various factors discussed above, we have no hesitation in cancelling the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the revised return filed by the assessee was voluntary and bona fide.
3. Whether the burden of proof for concealment lies with the Revenue.
4. Whether the notice issued under section 271(1)(c) was valid.
5. Whether there was willful concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):
The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was imposed by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) on the grounds that the additional income would not have come to light but for the survey operations. The A.O. relied on various judgments, including Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textiles Limited, to assert that willful concealment is not necessary for attracting civil liability. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, stating that any disclosure made after detection of concealment cannot be termed voluntary. The Tribunal found that the A.O. did not record any satisfaction in the assessment order about the concealment, and the assessment order did not indicate any difference between assessed income and returned income, leading to the conclusion that the penalty was not justified.

2. Whether the Revised Return Filed by the Assessee was Voluntary and Bona Fide:
The assessee argued that the revised return was filed voluntarily and in good faith to settle matters with the department. The CIT(A) rejected this argument, stating that the revised return was filed due to the detection of concealment. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had paid taxes on the additional income before filing the revised return and that the A.O. did not discuss how the additional income was quantified. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's action was bona fide and that the penalty was not leviable.

3. Whether the Burden of Proof for Concealment Lies with the Revenue:
The assessee contended that the burden of proof for concealment lies with the Revenue, which was not discharged. The CIT(A) held that there is no onus on the Department to prove willful concealment and that it is on the assessee to prove there is no concealment. The Tribunal found that the A.O. did not establish the nature of the income as concealed income and that the assessee's explanation was not disproved, thereby concluding that the conditions for imposing the penalty were not satisfied.

4. Whether the Notice Issued under Section 271(1)(c) was Valid:
The assessee argued that the notice issued under section 271(1)(c) was invalid as it did not specify the grounds for the penalty. The Tribunal noted that the notice did not indicate whether the proceedings were for concealed particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal held that sending a printed form with deleted columns does not satisfy the requirement of law, and the notice was invalid, making the penalty proceedings void ab initio.

5. Whether there was Willful Concealment of Income or Furnishing of Inaccurate Particulars by the Assessee:
The assessee argued that there was no willful concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The A.O. and CIT(A) relied on various judgments to assert that willful concealment is not necessary for imposing a penalty. The Tribunal, however, found that the A.O. did not establish any concealment or inaccurate particulars and that the assessee had offered a bona fide explanation. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty was not justified as the conditions for imposing the penalty were not met.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified due to the invalid notice, lack of satisfaction recorded by the A.O., and the bona fide explanation provided by the assessee. The penalty proceedings were found to be void ab initio, and the penalty was deleted.

← Previous Next →