2016 (4) TMI 850 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s.271(1) (c) - assessee has voluntarily accepted and agreed for addition and paid taxes - Held that - Additions are made on the submissions recorded during the survey operations u/s.133A of the Act and does not have evidential value without any incriminating documents supporting the statements and we rely on the jurisdictional High Court decision of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son 2007 (7) TMI 182 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and the assessee in penalty proceedings submitted that it a regular practice as the textile business for the seller to send the goods first and invoice would be received in weeks time. The survey was conducted during the Diwali season and the firm has ordered large quantity of stocks and such stock of goods were received only one day prior to the date of survey and due to which the assessee could not tally the stock on date of survey and also assessee voluntarily offered additional income of 1,50,000/-. In order to buy peace with the department and avoid protracted litigation the assessee has paid taxes and not filed appeal against the order u/sec.143(3) of the Act, the penalty proceedings are not automatic and they are separate and distinct. We draw support from the principles laid down in case of case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT and Accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
2. Allegation of concealment of income and inaccurate particulars by the Assessing Officer.
3. Appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) before the Tribunal.

Issue 1: Confirmation of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

The appeal filed by the assessee challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that the penalty was confirmed despite voluntarily accepting and agreeing for the addition and payment of taxes. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) after the assessee offered additional income of =1,50,000/- during survey operations under section 133A of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the penalty, concluding that there was a deliberate attempt by the assessee to suppress income. The assessee argued that the penalty was unwarranted as the additional income was offered to buy peace with the department and avoid prolonged litigation. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and decided to allow the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty.

Issue 2: Allegation of concealment of income and inaccurate particulars by the Assessing Officer

During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found discrepancies in cash payments to a supplier and invoked section 40A(3) of the Act, disallowing a portion of the cash payment. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) alleging that the assessee had concealed income and furnished inaccurate particulars. The Assessing Officer contended that the assessee's voluntary acceptance of additional income during survey operations indicated a deliberate attempt to evade taxes. The assessee, on the other hand, argued that the additional income was offered in good faith to resolve the matter swiftly and avoid contentious legal battles. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and legal principles, concluded that the penalty was not justified and ordered its deletion.

Issue 3: Appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) before the Tribunal

The assessee, aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the penalty, appealed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal carefully examined the facts of the case, including the voluntary disclosure of additional income by the assessee during survey operations. The Tribunal emphasized that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings and must be based on concrete evidence of tax evasion. Relying on legal precedents and the assessee's explanations, the Tribunal found no deliberate attempt to conceal income and directed the deletion of the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal highlighted the importance of substantiating allegations of tax evasion with substantial evidence before levying penalties under the Income Tax Act.

---