2011 (6) TMI 1039 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income.

Summary:

Levy of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Concealment of Income:

The appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.2.2008 of the CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2006-07, focusing on the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income.

Facts of the Case: The assessee, a builder and developer, was part of the "Earth Group" subjected to a search u/s 132 on 1.9.2005. Two diaries, A-11 and A-12, were seized. Diary A-11 contained cheque payments, while A-12 recorded cash sales not reflected in regular books. The cash receipts in A-12 were admitted as undisclosed income.

Assessment Proceedings: The Assessing Officer (AO) found discrepancies in seven transactions from diary A-11 and four from diary A-12, leading to an addition of Rs. 2,42,07,888/-. Since only 83% of the project was completed, Rs. 2,00,92,546/- was treated as undisclosed sales and added to the total income. Penalty proceedings for concealment were initiated, and a penalty of Rs. 67,63,150/- was levied.

CIT(A) Decision: The CIT(A) deleted the penalty related to diary A-11, noting that all payments were by cheque and supported by documentary facts. However, the penalty related to diary A-12 was confirmed. The Revenue did not appeal against the relief allowed by CIT(A), leaving only the penalty related to diary A-12 for consideration.

Penalty Proceedings: The assessee argued that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings and that mere addition does not automatically lead to concealment. Specific explanations were provided for discrepancies in flat No. 501, 1501, 1801/1802, and shop No. 19, but the AO rejected these explanations, noting a lack of supporting evidence and confirming the penalty.

Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, including sale agreements and assessment orders for subsequent years. However, it emphasized that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is a civil liability and does not require proof of mens rea. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanations unsubstantiated and not bonafide, particularly noting the improbability of not disputing substantial additions if no sale had occurred. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's case fell under Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) and upheld the penalty.

Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s order and the levy of penalty for concealment of income.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.6.2011.