2016 (5) TMI 1091 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Held that - Revenue has made additions and sustained the same only for the reason that the assessee could not convince the Revenue with respect to her claim though she had produced confirmation statements from the creditors and the Revenue on their part failed to ascertain the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee, we are of the view that the levy of penalty by the learned assessing officer is not justifiable. In the present case before us we find that the Revenue did not make any effort to verify the genuiness of the creditors of the assessee though the names, address and other particulars were before them by way of confirmation statement. For the above stated reasons, we are of the considered view that the penalty levied by the learned Assessing Officer is not maintainable - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Confirmation of minimum penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income by the assessee.

Analysis:
- The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeals confirming a minimum penalty of Rs. 3,90,456 under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income by the assessee.
- The case originated from a search action under section 132 of the Act, leading to the assessment under section 153C r.w.s. 153A & 143(3) of the Act, where additions were made due to doubts regarding the genuineness of loans.
- The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and levied a penalty on the addition of Rs. 11,60,000, as the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation and evidence regarding the source of the loans.
- The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the penalty, emphasizing that the appellant furnished inaccurate particulars of income and failed to substantiate the sources of the loans with cogent evidence.
- The appellant argued that confirmation letters from creditors were submitted, and the Assessing Officer erred in levying the penalty without verifying these statements.
- The Tribunal noted that while the Revenue's additions were sustainable, they failed to verify the confirmation letters and bank transactions provided by the assessee before levying the penalty.
- It was observed that the Revenue should have made efforts to verify the genuineness of the creditors and transactions before imposing the penalty, which was not done in this case.
- The Tribunal concluded that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was not justifiable, as the Revenue did not adequately verify the evidence provided by the assessee, leading to the deletion of the penalty of Rs. 3,90,456.
- The decision was in favor of the assessee, and the appeal was allowed, with the penalty being deleted.

This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments, findings, and conclusions of the judgment regarding the confirmation of the minimum penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income by the assessee.