2010 (1) TMI 843 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act - assessee has shown loans from two creditors, out of which one creditor, did not appear before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made the addition when the assessee expressed his inability to produce the creditor - assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that the other creditor would not cooperate and accordingly volunteered to the addition - Held that - This is not a case of bogus claim of expenditure or concealment of investment, but a case where the addition was agreed to by the assessee under such circumstances when it was realised that the creditor would not co-operate, assessee s bank statement showing that the loan was taken by crossed bank cheques and the transactions were through banking channel,not a case of either concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, penalty deleted. appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, imposed on the appellant for the assessment year 2005-06 is justified.

Analysis:
The appellant raised various grounds in the appeal, but the primary issue was whether the penalty of Rs. 1,09,777 imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act was valid. The case revolved around two loans shown by the appellant from two creditors during the assessment year. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings as one of the creditors did not appear before the officer, leading to the addition of Rs. 3 lakhs as unexplained credit. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the penalty, citing the appellant's agreement to the addition. However, the appellant argued that the loan was obtained through crossed bank cheques and provided evidence of the transaction through bank accounts. The appellant contended that the failure to produce one creditor should not warrant a penalty, as the genuineness and identity of the creditor were not disputed. The appellant also cited relevant case laws to support their argument.

The Departmental representative, on the other hand, argued that the appellant failed to prove the cash credits discovered by the Assessing Officer, justifying the penalty as per relevant legal precedents. The representative emphasized the appellant's inability to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditor, shifting the onus on the appellant. After considering the arguments and records, the Tribunal found that while one creditor appeared and confirmed the transaction, the other did not. The appellant expressed inability to produce the non-cooperating creditor, leading to the agreed addition. The Tribunal noted that the loan transactions were through banking channels, with no dispute over the creditor's identity. The Tribunal concluded that the case did not involve concealment of income or inaccurate particulars, as the appellant provided sufficient details. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the penalty was unwarranted and deleted it, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.

In summary, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 2005-06. The decision was based on the appellant's provision of relevant details, the lack of dispute over the creditor's identity, and the transaction's transparency through banking channels. The Tribunal found no grounds for penalty imposition, considering the circumstances of the case and the legal arguments presented by both parties.