2015 (7) TMI 607 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - treating part of agricultural income disclosed by the assessee as non agricultural income on estimation basis - Held that - Assessing Officer was not sure what the exact income of the assessee from agricultural income. In other words, the Assessing Officer has estimated the agricultural income. As there is no material to suggest any undisclosed income as such levy of penalty cannot be sustained on estimated basis. This is not normal assessment and assessment was made consequent to search action and that is also by estimating portion of the agricultural income as non agricultural income. Had it been undisclosed income based upon concrete evidence recovered from search action, then our opinion would have been different. In the present case, the estimation of portion of the agricultural income as non agricultural income, consequent to search cannot be reason to levy penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, we inclined to delete the penalty on this count treating part of agricultural income disclosed by the assessee as non agricultural income on estimation basis. - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition in respect of unexplained bank deposits - Levy of penalty - Held that - Any amount deposited in bank account of the assessee, the assessee has to explain the source from which it was deposited. In the present case, the assessee is not able to explain the deposits. According to the assessee, the assessee is not educated and return subsequent to the search was filed by a Chartered Accountant who obviously has not made out a proper disclosure. The intention of the assessee was to make a proper disclosure, come out clean and pay the taxes. However, it was submitted that it was only the mistake of the Chartered Accountant and not of the assessee in proper disclosure. Later the assessee accepted for the addition to purchase peace and to avoid prolonged litigation. In our opinion, this contention of the assessee is totally misconceived. It is the duty of the assessee to disclose truly and fully while filing the return of income. The assessee cannot shift his responsibility to its Chartered Accountant. Further the assessee stated it was ill advised by the Chartered Accountant without mentioning the name of the Chartered Accountant. It is not brought on record what advice was given by the Chartered Accountant on this issue. In our opinion, the assessee has concealed particulars of income and also not given any bonafide explanation for this. The Assessing Officer had recorded a categorical finding that he was satisfied that the assessee had concealed the true particulars of income and was liable for penalty proceedings under section 271 read with section 274 of the Act. See Mak Data (Pvt) Ltd. vs. CIT 2013 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT - Decided against assessee. Levy of penalty for deemed dividend - Held that - The only contention of the assessee s counsel is that this addition was voluntarily offered to buy peace and to avoid litigation and penalty cannot be levied. In our opinion, this cannot be a bonafide explanation so as to go out of the rigours of penalty proceedings. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra), that penalty is leviable. In our opinion, the assessee failed to substantiate non offering of G10,00,000/- as income which was received by the assessee from the company where the assessee is having substantial interest. Being so, in the absence of the explanation of the assessee, we are not in a position to delete the penalty. - Decided against assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Treatment of agricultural income as non-agricultural income.
3. Unexplained bank deposits.
4. Unexplained cash deposits.
5. Deemed dividend.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):
The primary issue revolves around the levy of penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for concealment of income. The penalties were imposed following a search under Section 132 of the Act and subsequent assessments under Section 153A. The Tribunal examined whether the penalties were justified based on the evidence and circumstances of each assessment year.

2. Treatment of Agricultural Income as Non-Agricultural Income:
For multiple assessment years (2000-01 to 2006-07), the Assessing Officer (AO) treated a portion of the declared agricultural income as non-agricultural income due to the lack of supporting evidence. The AO disallowed 20% of the agricultural income, treating it as income from other sources. The Tribunal noted that the AO's treatment was based on estimation and not on concrete evidence. Citing precedents like CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products and others, the Tribunal concluded that penalties cannot be levied on estimated income. Consequently, the penalties related to the treatment of agricultural income were deleted for the assessment years in question.

3. Unexplained Bank Deposits:
For the assessment years 2002-03 and 2004-05, the AO imposed penalties for unexplained deposits in the assessee's bank accounts. The Tribunal upheld the penalties, emphasizing the assessee's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the deposits. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Mak Data (Pvt) Ltd. vs. CIT, which held that penalties are justified when the assessee fails to disclose true income and provides no bona fide explanation. Thus, the penalties for unexplained bank deposits were confirmed.

4. Unexplained Cash Deposits:
In the assessment year 2004-05, penalties were also imposed for unexplained cash deposits. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not address this issue in their order. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to provide findings on the levy of penalties for unexplained cash deposits, thereby partially allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.

5. Deemed Dividend:
For the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, the AO levied penalties for deemed dividends received by the assessee. The assessee's explanation that the additions were voluntarily offered to avoid litigation was rejected by the Tribunal. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Mak Data (Pvt) Ltd. vs. CIT, the Tribunal confirmed the penalties, stating that the assessee failed to substantiate the non-offering of the deemed dividend as income.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's judgment resulted in a mixed outcome:
- The appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2000-01 to 2003-04 were allowed, deleting penalties related to the treatment of agricultural income.
- The appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2006-07 were partly allowed, with penalties for unexplained cash deposits and deemed dividends being confirmed.
- The Revenue's appeals for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2004-05 were allowed, confirming the penalties for unexplained bank deposits.

Order Pronounced:
The order was pronounced on Thursday, the 9th day of July, 2015, at Chennai.

← Previous Next →