2008 (4) TMI 210 - HC - Income Tax

Addition made on account of unexplained investment in excess stock penalty also imposed AO not verified the contention of respondent assessee that the stock is verifiable from the books of account - respondent has discharged his liability by placing on record affidavits filed by the agriculturists, to show the genuineness of the transaction - revenue failed to adduce evidence to contradict the claim of the assessee - assessee s explanation is not p roved false penalty not imposable

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of canceling penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Validity of canceling penalty based on factual findings.

Analysis:
1. The High Court considered the appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the Tribunal canceling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal had canceled the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer on the assessee for surrendering income related to unexplained investment in excess stock of sarson. The revenue contended that the surrender of income was not voluntary in good faith but a result of being cornered about the unexplained investment. The High Court noted that the Tribunal found the Assessing Officer had not verified the stock from the books of account and that no unexplained investment was made for the purchase of sarson. The Tribunal also observed that the Assessing Officer had not provided clear findings that the alleged stock was outside the books of account. The Tribunal accepted the affidavits filed by agriculturists to show the genuineness of the transaction, which the revenue failed to dispute. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that no questions of law arose, and dismissed the appeal.

2. The second issue involved the validity of canceling the penalty based on factual findings. The High Court noted that the revenue argued that the assessee did not provide evidence to rebut the unaccounted stock and questioned the bona fide of the assessee. However, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not adequately verified the stock from the books of account and had not shown any unexplained investment for the purchase of sarson. The Tribunal also highlighted that the revenue failed to contradict the genuineness of the transaction supported by affidavits from agriculturists. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's reasoning, stating that the circumstances did not lead to a reasonable inference that the assessee's explanation was false. Therefore, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty, concluding that no legal questions arose for determination in the appeal filed by the revenue.