9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (10) TMI 14 - HC - Income TaxPenalty for Concealment of Income u/s 271(1)(c). - Held that -Where the assessee surrenders his full income, though at a later stage, there was no question of any concealment on his part and consequently no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable, and that a omission from return of income did not amount to concealment. decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the ITAT could have affirmed the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty when the assessee did not offer additional income until after a questionnaire was served on him. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Affirmation of CIT(A)'s Order by ITAT The core issue revolves around whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was correct in affirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] to delete the penalty imposed on the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1962. Facts and Proceedings: - A search and seizure operation under Section 132 was conducted at the assessee's residence on 18th June 2003. - The assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2004-05 on 28th October 2004. - Following the search, a notice under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) along with a detailed questionnaire was issued on 10th October 2005. - In response, the assessee offered an amount of Rs. 89,57,106 received as a gift for taxation via a letter dated 2nd December 2005. - The Assessing Officer (AO) assessed the income at Rs. 1,15,49,232 and levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealing and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. - The CIT(A) deleted the penalty after a detailed discussion, which was upheld by the ITAT. Arguments by Revenue: - The Revenue argued that the assessee did not disclose his true income in the original return and only offered the gift for taxation after the questionnaire was served, implying that the penalty was rightly levied by the AO. Assessee's Defense: - The assessee provided sufficient evidence regarding the genuineness of the gift. - The gift amount was offered for taxation voluntarily to avoid litigation, not as an admission of concealed income. - The CIT(A) and ITAT found no evidence of willful concealment or fraud by the assessee. Observations by AO and ITAT: - The AO's assessment order did not indicate any specific evidence or material proving the gift was bogus or sham. - The ITAT noted that the AO included the gift amount in the total income based solely on the assessee's declaration. - The ITAT and CIT(A) found that the gift was offered voluntarily and not due to any detection by the Department. Legal Precedents: - The Supreme Court in K.C. Builders v. ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 held that "concealment" requires a deliberate act and carries the element of mens rea. - The Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. S.V. Electricals P. Ltd. and the Jharkhand High Court in CIT v. Ashim Kumar Agarwal held that surrendering income at a later stage does not constitute concealment and no penalty is leviable. Conclusion: - The ITAT correctly concluded that there was no detection by the AO that the gift was not genuine and that the assessee had offered the amount voluntarily. - The absence of any material suggesting the gift was bogus or untrue led to the conclusion that the surrender was voluntary. - The question of law was answered against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee, thereby dismissing the appeal. Judgment: The appeal filed by the Department was dismissed, affirming the deletion of the penalty imposed on the assessee. The court concluded that there was no deliberate concealment of income by the assessee, and the voluntary offer of the gift amount for taxation could not justify the imposition of a penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
|
