2014 (1) TMI 856 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act Held that - The addition u/s 68 of the Act was made by the Assessing Officer when the assessee himself offered to include the amount in his total income and consented to pay the tax - Another addition of Rs. 1 lakh was also made when the assessee voluntarily preferred to include Rs.1 lakh to his total income The decision in National Textile vs Commissioner of Income Tax 2000 (10) TMI 19 - GUJARAT High Court followed - The assessee consented to pay tax to avoid further litigation and to buy mental peace and instead of offering further explanation, the assessee voluntarily surrendered before the tax authorities and paid the tax imposed by the Assessing Officer in regard to the addition - In absence of further appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) or to the Tribunal, the quantum assessment order has reached to its finality but the assessment order is not conclusive evidence that the amount assessed was in fact the income of the assessee and it cannot be presumed that there was a conscious concealment or act of furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee Decided in favour of Assessee.

Issues:
- Confirmation of penalty order by Commissioner of Income Tax(A) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for AY 2008-09.
- Legality and validity of penalty imposition by Assessing Officer.
- Assessment of unrecorded cash receipts and agricultural income.
- Consideration of voluntary surrender by assessee to avoid further litigation.
- Interpretation of legal provisions for penalty imposition.

Issue 1: Confirmation of Penalty Order
The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) confirming the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for AY 2008-09. The main grounds raised by the assessee challenged the legality and validity of the penalty imposition.

Issue 2: Legality of Penalty Imposition
During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed unrecorded cash receipts and additional income from agricultural activities. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 3 lakh based on the findings. The assessee contended that the penalty order was illegal, beyond jurisdiction, and void ab initio. The counsel argued that the additions were made on voluntary surrender and consent of the assessee to avoid further litigation.

Issue 3: Assessment of Unrecorded Cash Receipts and Agricultural Income
The Assessing Officer made additions to the income based on unrecorded cash receipts and unexplained agricultural income. The assessee failed to provide necessary documents and evidence to justify these amounts. The penalty was imposed considering the deliberate diversion of taxable income under agricultural income.

Issue 4: Consideration of Voluntary Surrender
The contention arose regarding the voluntary surrender by the assessee to avoid further litigation and buy mental peace. The Assessing Officer and the Departmental Representative argued that this voluntary surrender amounted to conscious concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee.

Issue 5: Interpretation of Legal Provisions for Penalty Imposition
The Tribunal analyzed legal precedents, including judgments of High Courts, to determine the imposition of penalties. It was observed that the assessee's voluntary surrender and payment of tax did not conclusively prove conscious concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal held that the penalty was not imposable based on the circumstances of the case and the erroneous assumptions made by the Assessing Officer.

Conclusion
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty order imposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A). The decision was based on the lack of conclusive evidence for conscious concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee, as per legal interpretations and precedents cited during the proceedings.

← Previous Next →