2013 (6) TMI 595 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - unexplained investment in stock - Held that - AO has not considered the issue independently in the proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). Finding recorded by the AO while imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) would reveal that there is no conclusive finding at all by the AO that the assessee has either concealed his income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income As can be gathered from the discussions made by the CIT (A) in his order while deleting the penalty, the assessee did prove the fact that he had entered into the transactions with M/s Kalpataru Jewellers and in course of assessment proceedings, the AO also had examined the books of accounts, bills and vouchers of M/s Kalpataru Jewellers wherein the transaction under those right bills were found to be duly recorded. It is another fact that the purchases made under Bill Nos. 74 to 77 were not accepted on the ground of human probabilities but that itself would not lead to the conclusion that the assessee has concealed his income when it is not disputed that when assessee s business transaction with M/s Kalpataru Jewellers is not disputed and it is also fact that all the transactions in the said bills were recorded in the books of accounts of M/s Kalpataru Jewellers. As held in case of Hindustan Steels (1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME Court) an order imposing penalty for failure to carry out statutory obligation is the result of quasi criminal proceedings and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged under the Act has either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty deleted. In favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CIT (A) was correct in deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the addition of Rs. 97,74,968 for unexplained investment in stock.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on Unexplained Investment in Stock:

The department's appeal focused on the CIT (A)'s decision to not sustain the penalty under section 271(1)(c) on an addition of Rs. 97,74,968 for unexplained investment in stock. The facts reveal that the assessee, a partnership firm in the gold jewellery business, underwent a search and seizure operation on 30-08-2005. The Assessing Officer (AO) determined a total income of Rs. 28,75,42,130 by making several additions, including unexplained cash, investment in stock, and investment in bullion.

Upon appeal, the CIT (A) reduced some of the additions but sustained Rs. 97,74,968 for unexplained investment in stock. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld this decision. Subsequently, the AO imposed a penalty of Rs. 9,46,58,443 under section 271(1)(c), which included the sustained addition.

During the penalty appeal, the CIT (A) deleted the penalty, noting that the assessee had provided all necessary facts and that the AO's conclusions were based on human probabilities rather than concrete evidence of concealment or inaccuracy. The CIT (A) emphasized that the assessee's transactions with M/s Kalpataru Jewellers were recorded in their books and confirmed by the third party, and that the AO had not proven these transactions to be false.

The CIT (A) referenced several judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Anantharam Veerasinghiah & Co. vs. CIT, which established that findings in assessment proceedings are not conclusive for penalty proceedings. The CIT (A) also cited ITAT decisions which held that penalties cannot be based on assumptions or probabilities but must be supported by concrete evidence of concealment or inaccuracy.

The department argued that the confirmation of the addition by ITAT indicated concealment of income, justifying the penalty. However, the assessee contended that the penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings, requiring a distinct finding of concealment or inaccuracy.

The ITAT, after reviewing the facts and judicial precedents, concluded that the addition was based on peculiar facts and human probabilities, not on concrete evidence of concealment. The ITAT noted that the AO had not independently established concealment or inaccuracy during the penalty proceedings. Thus, the ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s decision to delete the penalty, affirming that the AO had not proven the assessee's conscious attempt to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the department was dismissed, and the CIT (A)'s order deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was confirmed. The ITAT emphasized the need for concrete evidence of concealment or inaccuracy in penalty proceedings, independent of the findings in assessment proceedings.