2015 (2) TMI 540 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 27 1(1)(c) - disbelieving the agricultural holding - Held that - AO himself has accepted the extent of land holding both in the immediately preceding year (AY 2007-08) and in the immediately succeeding year (AY 2009-10). Hence, the very basis on which the agricultural income was reduced in AY 2008-09 is proved to be wrong by the above said facts. Thus, it is seen that the agricultural income has been estimated at a lower figure in AY 2008-09 on the basis of mere presumption about the extent of land holding, which is proved to be wrong. The Assessing Officer has also failed to furnish the basis in adopting a round sum amount of ₹ 5.00 lakhs. Thus, the agricultural income determined by the Assessing Officer turns out to be a mere estimate. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the assessee cannot be found fault with, with the charge of concealment of particulars of income. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) in AY 2008-09 and direct the assessing officer to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for that year. In AY 2009-10 the assessing officer has simply forced the assessee to scale down the agricultural income by making lower estimates. The AO has examined the extent of land holding and was also satisfied with the same. However, in one of the agricultural record, the area of cultivation was shown at a lower level and hence the assessing officer has considered the same to be a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, it is seen that there is contradiction in the stand of the assessing officer also. In any case, it is seen that the assessing officer has substituted the agricultural income declared by the assessee with another estimate only. In our view, such kind of substitution of income on estimated basis cannot be considered to be a case of concealment of particulars of income and hence the same would not give rise to any penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were against penalties imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The AO had initially levied penalties at varying rates, which were partially upheld by the CIT(A). The appellant contested these penalties.

2. The appellant declared agricultural income for both years based on estimated market rates. The AO, however, disagreed with the declared agricultural income, reducing it significantly and treating the difference as income from other sources. The appellant initially challenged the assessment for 2008-09 but later withdrew the appeal, accepting both assessment orders.

3. The AO imposed penalties based on alleged concealment of income. In 2008-09, the penalty was reduced by CIT(A) but still upheld. In 2009-10, the penalty was imposed for willful concealment. The appellant argued that the AO's estimates were arbitrary and lacked supporting evidence, thus no concealment occurred.

4. The appellant contended that the AO's estimates were unfounded and that no deliberate concealment took place. The AO's actions were based on presumptions rather than concrete evidence, converting exempt income into taxable income without proper justification.

5. The Revenue argued that the appellant deliberately inflated agricultural income, which was exempt, and only accepted the AO's adjustments after scrutiny began. They claimed the penalties were justified due to the appellant's actions.

6. The Tribunal reviewed the facts and found discrepancies in the AO's treatment of agricultural income. In 2008-09, the AO's estimates were based on incorrect presumptions, contradicting his acceptance of land holdings in previous and subsequent years. Therefore, the penalty for 2008-09 was deemed unjustified and directed for deletion.

7. For 2009-10, the Tribunal noted the AO's insistence on lowering the declared agricultural income without substantial evidence. The AO's actions were deemed as substituting income estimates rather than proving concealment, leading to the penalty being overturned.

8. Additional information revealed that the AO had dropped penalty proceedings in other years with similar disallowances, supporting the appellant's case. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed both appeals, ruling in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the penalties imposed under section 271(1)(c) for both assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 were unwarranted due to the arbitrary nature of the AO's income estimates and lack of evidence supporting deliberate concealment. The appeals were allowed in favor of the appellant.