2015 (4) TMI 977 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - borrowing/advances towards ancestral share in the property not proved - Tribunal confirming the order of CIT(A) in deleting penalty - Held that - Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal by the impugned order have accepted the explanation offered by the respondent-Assessee. Consequently holding that inability to prove a liability would not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars for the purpose of imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the appellant-Revenue has proceeded on the basis that there was in fact a sale of property as is evident from the fact that the reopening notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 22/03/2012 seeking to reopen the assessment for AY 2007-08. This notice for reopening dated 22/03/2012 is identical to the basis of the explanation offered by the respondent-Assessee viz. that there was a sale of property which resulted in the Assessee being paid ₹ 92.00 lakhs. Thus, there is no reason shown to us to disturb the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Tribunal . No substantial question of law - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2007-08.
2. Questions of law formulated by Revenue:
A. Confirmation of order of Commissioner of Income Tax (A) and deletion of penalty.
B. Endorsement of order of Commissioner of Income Tax (A) regarding undisclosed income.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to ITAT Order
The respondent-Assessee filed a return of income for AY 2007-08 showing total income of &8377; 1.75 lakhs. The Assessing Officer enhanced the income to &8377; 26.65 lakhs due to unexplained cash credit of &8377; 49.79 lakhs from the balance sheet. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this enhancement, which the respondent-Assessee accepted. Subsequently, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated, imposing a penalty of &8377; 16.73 lakhs. The respondent-Assessee explained that the amount was from property sale proceeds to be shared with others, leading to the penalty being set aside. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that failure to prove liability does not amount to inaccurate particulars or concealment of income.

Issue 2: Questions of Law
The Revenue challenged the Tribunal's decision, arguing that the reopening notice for AY 2007-08 indicated a property sale of &8377; 92 lakhs, which was not reflected in the respondent's profits. However, both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal accepted the respondent's explanation, emphasizing that the inability to prove a liability does not warrant penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Revenue's contention that there was a property sale was acknowledged, but the consistent acceptance of the respondent's explanation led to the dismissal of the appeal, as no substantial question of law arose.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, with no costs awarded, as the explanations provided by the respondent-Assessee were accepted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's challenge under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2007-08.