2013 (9) TMI 1068 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that - We find no force in the submissions in the absence of any enquiry during penalty proceedings, penalty proceedings could not have been levied. As stated earlier while discussing legal position, the burden was on the assessee to give proper explanation which has not been found to be bonafide in the absence of PAN and other details. Therefore, clearly the assessee has concealed the particulars of income and the assessee has miserably failed to prove the transaction relating to the deposits received from Shri Pritam Singh. In our opinion, this is a fit case for levy of penalty and in our opinion, the ld. CIT(A) has correctly confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Assessment of the explanation provided by the assessee regarding undisclosed bank deposits.
3. Applicability and interpretation of legal precedents and statutory amendments related to penalty provisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Penalty Imposed Under Section 271(1)(c):
The assessee contested the penalty of Rs. 40,48,800/- imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, arguing that the penalty proceedings were independent of assessment proceedings and that the CIT(A) failed to consider the evidence and written submissions provided. The tribunal noted that the penalty proceedings were initiated due to the assessee's failure to disclose a bank account with significant deposits, which were not explained satisfactorily. The explanation provided by the assessee was not substantiated with credible evidence, leading to the confirmation of the penalty by the CIT(A).

2. Assessment of the Explanation Provided by the Assessee:
The assessee claimed that the deposits in the undisclosed bank account were received from Shri Pritam Singh for purchasing agricultural land on behalf of M/s West Point Property Pvt. Ltd. However, the assessee failed to produce Shri Pritam Singh or provide adequate details to verify the identity and creditworthiness of the parties involved. The tribunal noted that the explanation lacked credibility, as the necessary documentary evidence and particulars, such as PAN details, were not furnished. The tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof was on the assessee to substantiate the explanation, which was not met, leading to the conclusion that the deposits were unexplained income.

3. Applicability and Interpretation of Legal Precedents and Statutory Amendments:
The tribunal reviewed the historical context and amendments to Section 271(1)(c) and its explanations. It highlighted that the insertion of Explanation 1 shifted the burden of proof to the assessee to demonstrate that there was no concealment of income. The tribunal referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including CIT v. Anwar Ali and Union of India v. Dharmendra Textiles Processors, to clarify that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) involves "Strict Civil Liability" and does not require proof of mens rea (intent). The tribunal concluded that the findings in the assessment order, while not conclusive, constituted evidence in penalty proceedings. The assessee's failure to provide a bona fide explanation or substantiate the transactions led to the confirmation of the penalty.

Conclusion:
The tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) due to the assessee's failure to disclose a bank account with significant deposits and provide a credible explanation for the same. The tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof was on the assessee to substantiate the explanation, which was not met. The legal precedents and statutory amendments were interpreted to support the imposition of the penalty, affirming that the penalty provisions involve strict civil liability and do not require proof of intent. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed, and the order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty was upheld.