2011 (9) TMI 733 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income - In the present case the declaration made by the assessee in the return of income was that the amount of Rs.17, 00, 000/represents the long term capital gain arising on surrender of tenancy rights and accordingly the assessee paid taxes under the head income from capital gains at the rate of 20% - The penalty is imposed not because the amount offered by the assessee has been assessed under a heading other than the heading declared by the assessee but the penalty has been levied on account of the fact that the declaration made by the assessee regarding the source from which the income and Rs.17, 00, 000/has been earned has been found to be incorrect - Decided against the assessee

Issues:
1. Justification of deleting penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal).
2. Assessment year AY 1996-97.
3. Disallowance of claimed income by assessing officer.
4. Imposition and reduction of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
5. Argument regarding concealment of income by the appellant.
6. Applicability of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) based on incorrect declaration of income source.

Issue 1: Justification of deleting penalty under Section 271(1)(c)
The case involved a question of whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant had initially declared income as long-term capital gains arising from surrender of tenancy rights, which was later disallowed by the assessing officer. The Tribunal upheld the assessing officer's decision regarding the undisclosed income, which was assessed under a different category. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated, and the penalty was reduced by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that no concealment or inaccurate particulars were furnished.

Issue 2: Assessment Year AY 1996-97
The assessment year in question was AY 1996-97, during which the appellant filed a return of income declaring a specific amount as long-term capital gains. However, the assessing officer disallowed this claim, leading to further proceedings and the eventual imposition of a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Issue 3: Disallowance of Claimed Income
The assessing officer disallowed the appellant's claim of income arising from the surrender of tenancy rights, asserting that the amount credited to the appellant's account preceded the alleged transfer of tenancy. Consequently, the undisclosed income was assessed under a different category, and the penalty was imposed based on this discrepancy.

Issue 4: Imposition and Reduction of Penalty
Following the assessment of undisclosed income, penalty proceedings were initiated, resulting in the imposition of a 200% penalty by the assessing officer. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) later reduced the penalty to 100%, a decision upheld by the Tribunal. The appellant contested this penalty, leading to the present appeal.

Issue 5: Argument Regarding Concealment of Income
The appellant argued that no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars had occurred, citing previous court decisions. However, the court found no merit in these contentions, emphasizing that the declaration made by the appellant regarding the source of income was false, leading to the imposition of the penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

Issue 6: Applicability of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(c)
The court clarified that the penalty was not imposed solely due to the reclassification of income but rather because the appellant's initial declaration was found to be incorrect. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deemed applicable based on the inaccurate particulars of income furnished by the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the imposition of the penalty.

← Previous Next →