9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (3) TMI 846 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Since, it is a decided issue at the level of the jurisdictional High Court, that no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable in respect of the concealment income, which was assessed in the wrong AY and in the wrong person for any reasons - Further, no penalties are leviable when the assessee has nowhere admitted that it had concealed its income as held by the jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. Bhimji Bhanjee and Co. 1982 -TMI - 28262 - BOMBAY High Court - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Years (AYs) 2002-03 and 2003-04. 2. Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) recorded the requisite satisfaction regarding concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. 3. Voluntary and suo moto disclosure of additional income by the assessee. 4. Extent of penalty to be levied. Detailed Analysis: 1. Confirmation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for AYs 2002-03 and 2003-04: The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for both AYs. The AO initiated penalty proceedings for concealing particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof. The AO's view was based on discrepancies found during a survey under Section 133A, leading to the disclosure of additional income and subsequent revision of returns. 2. Requisite Satisfaction Regarding Concealment: The assessee argued that the AO did not record the requisite satisfaction regarding concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The AO, however, noted that bank enquiries revealed unaccounted fixed deposits (FDs) exceeding the additional income initially disclosed by the assessee. The AO concluded that the assessee concealed particulars of income and levied penalties. 3. Voluntary and Suo Moto Disclosure of Additional Income: The assessee contended that the additional income was voluntarily disclosed to avoid litigation and buy peace. The revised returns were filed incorporating the additional income, and the assessee cooperated fully with the department. The CIT(A) rejected this defense, stating that the disclosure was not entirely voluntary but prompted by the survey and subsequent bank enquiries. The CIT(A) also dismissed the claim of an oral understanding for non-levy of penalties. 4. Extent of Penalty to be Levied: The assessee requested that the penalty be restricted to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. The AO levied a penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs for AY 2002-03, acknowledging the assessee's cooperation but maintaining that the concealment warranted penalty. The CIT(A) upheld this penalty. Tribunal's Findings: 1. Undisputed Facts: - The survey action resulted in the disclosure of additional income. - The revised returns were filed validly, and taxes were paid on the additional income. - The FDs were held in the names of the assessee's wife and daughter, not the assessee. - The source income for the FDs related to earlier AYs, not the years under consideration. 2. Lack of Incriminating Material: - The Tribunal noted the absence of specific incriminating material gathered during the survey or subsequent enquiries. - The AO and CIT(A) did not provide concrete evidence that the additional income was concealed. 3. Legal Provisions and Precedents: - The Tribunal referenced Section 271(1)(c) and the Supreme Court's interpretation in CIT v. Reliance Petro-products (P.) Ltd., emphasizing that penalty requires clear evidence of concealment or inaccurate particulars. - The Tribunal found that the revised returns were accurate and accepted by the AO without further additions. - The Tribunal also referred to the Bombay High Court's decisions in Jainarayan Babulal v. CIT and CIT v. Bhimji Bhanjee and Co., which supported the assessee's case. 4. Conclusion: - The Tribunal concluded that the penalty provisions were not applicable as the additional income was not free from dispute regarding ownership and the correct AYs. - The Tribunal found that the assessee's cooperation and the voluntary disclosure of income did not justify the levy of penalties. - The penalties levied by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were deleted. Result: Both appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the penalties for AYs 2002-03 and 2003-04 were deleted. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th March 2011.
|
