2015 (10) TMI 991 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition on the basis of seized papers from the premises of the assessee and on account of cash deposited in the HDFC Bank - CIT(A) deleted the penalty - Held that - It transpires that if an addition is to be made on the basis of a seized document, then it must be supported by some identification having any nexus with the unaccounted business activity of the assessee. The nature of transaction should reflect some direct or indirect connection with the accounted or unaccounted activity of the assessee. If a document is silent or the ingredients could not be linked, then the said document was considered as a dumb document . Revenue Department had not made sufficient enquiry so as to establish that in fact the said document had unearthed a concealed business activity of the assessee. In the absence of any such evidence, the addition so made by the AO remained un-corroborated, hence, we hereby reverse the findings and allow this ground. Since the addition in quantum proceedings has been deleted by the Coordinate Bench the penalty does not survive, therefore we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld - Decided in favour of assessee. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - unexplained cash deposits - Held that - In the present case, the AO has given a clear finding that the assessee is guilty of concealing the particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by the ld.counsel for the assessee do not help to the assessee and we do not find any merit in the arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the assessee. Thus, the ground of Assessee s appeal is hereby rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of claim of shortage/loss of material as bad debt by the assessee.
2. Imposition of penalty on addition made on account of unexplained cash deposits.

Issue 1: Disallowance of claim of shortage/loss of material as bad debt by the assessee:
The Revenue raised grounds challenging the deletion of an addition amounting to Rs. 39,22,599 on account of disallowance of the claim of shortage/loss of material as bad debt by the assessee for AY 2006-07. The Revenue argued that the assessee could have claimed the business loss in the year the short payment was received, emphasizing the nature of business. They contended that the shortage exceeded accepted limits, shifting the onus to the assessee to prove it, which they failed to do. The Revenue also argued that the amount was not receivable from any sale or service, hence not a bad debt. The ITAT, Ahmedabad, in a detailed analysis, referred to a seized document reflecting business transactions in oil and kerosene oil. The Tribunal found no evidence linking the document to the assessee's business activity, emphasizing the need for a nexus between seized documents and unaccounted business activities. Relying on precedent case laws, the Tribunal reversed the findings, allowing the ground of the assessee's appeal. Consequently, the penalty did not survive as the addition was deleted in quantum proceedings.

Issue 2: Imposition of penalty on addition made on account of unexplained cash deposits:
The assessee appealed against the penalty levied on the addition of Rs. 3,05,766 for alleged unexplained cash deposits. The counsel argued that the AO did not clearly establish whether the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. They relied on the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in a similar case. However, the Revenue contended that the AO found the assessee guilty of both concealing income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. The ITAT examined the facts and noted that the AO's clear finding was crucial. Unlike previous cases, where the terms 'and/or' were used, in this case, the AO explicitly stated both charges. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the arguments of the assessee's counsel, upholding the penalty imposed by the AO.

In conclusion, the ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed both the Revenue's and the Assessee's appeals, maintaining the orders of the authorities below. The judgment provided detailed analyses for each issue, considering legal precedents and the specific findings of the assessing officer in each case.