2016 (6) TMI 87 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) on the additions made while framing the assessment u/s.153C - Held that - There can hardly be any dispute about the settled legal position that quantum and penalty proceedings stand on different footing and each and every addition of undisclosed income does not lead to imposition of penalty. We observe in these facts and circumstance that we are dealing with a tax statute wherein levy of penalty by invoking a penal provision after finalization of quantum is not automatic. We view the case from this angle and hold that the present one is an instance where assessee has not been able to substantiate his explanation of having spent the impugned expenditure limit for his employer company for the purpose of the business and also the Revenue has failed to refer to the employer s books so as to negate the same by holding that the very sums have not been claimed as expenditure. We reiterate that this is a penalty case liable to be strictly interpreted. This factual position leads us to a conclusion that the authorities below have wrongly imposed the impugned penalty u/s.271 (1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues involved:
- Appeal against penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
- Whether penalty justified based on undisclosed income additions.
- Comparison with similar case of Alkesh Patel for penalty deletion.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Appeal against penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act
The case involved a series of appeals by the same assessee challenging separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) pertaining to different Assessment Years (AYs). The appeals were consolidated due to common issues except quantum. The primary issue was the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act based on additions made during the assessment u/s.153C of the Act.

Issue 2: Justification of penalty based on undisclosed income additions
The Assessing Officer (AO) had levied a penalty of &8377;41,400/- on the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing income. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, emphasizing that the addition was based on data found during a search operation, indicating non-voluntary disclosure. The appellant challenged this decision on various grounds, including pending immunity application u/s.273AA and the legality of the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under sec.153C.

Issue 3: Comparison with Alkesh Patel case for penalty deletion
The appellant cited a similar case of Alkesh Patel where the penalty was deleted by the Tribunal based on the explanation provided by the assessee regarding undisclosed income. The Tribunal observed that the Revenue failed to prove that the corresponding sums were not claimed as expenditure by the employer. Drawing parallels with the Alkesh Patel case, the Tribunal in the present case decided to delete the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) for the AY 2002-03. The decision was based on the lack of substantial evidence to justify the penalty in light of the explanation provided by the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed all the appeals of the assessee, consistent with the decision to delete the penalty in the lead case of AY 2002-03. The judgment highlighted the importance of substantiating explanations for undisclosed income and the need for concrete evidence to support penalty imposition. The comparison with the Alkesh Patel case played a crucial role in determining the outcome of the appeals.