9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 405 - HC - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271 (1)(c) - appellant/assessee being the sales tax practitioner - non disclosure of income - Held that - As from the material on record that the appellant/ assessee failed to disclose the income or concealed the income from different sources, filed the return and the same was accepted. However, during search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act conducted at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad, the appellant/assessee was found in possession of ₹ 12,65,900/- and the authorities seized ₹ 12,00,000/-. The authorities also collected the accounts statements from the banks pertaining to the appellant/assessee and found that there are deposits and withdrawals at regular intervals, but those amounts are not reflected in the returns filed by the appellant/assessee for the reasons best known to him. Such nondisclosure would directly attract the provisions of Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act as it deals with concealment of income from different sources by the assessee. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty by exercising power under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, which was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Even otherwise, bonafides pleaded by assessee is a question of fact and that would not give raise to substantial question of law before this Court as the appeal under Section 260-A of the Act can be admitted only if substantial question of law is made out by the appellant. The ground urged before this Court that the appellant/assessee bonafidely did not disclose the income is a question of fact, which cannot be enquired into by this Court in view of our aforesaid discussions. The facts on record did not give rise to any substantial question of law, which is essential to admit the appeal. Hence, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal fails. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the respondents and against the appellant/assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether the appellant/assessee is guilty of "furnishing of inaccurate particulars" or "concealment of particulars of income". 3. Applicability of Explanation 1 to Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act. 4. Whether the appellant/assessee's failure to disclose income was bona fide. 5. Whether the High Court can interfere with the factual findings of the lower authorities under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act: The appellant/assessee, a Sales Tax Practitioner, was found in possession of ?12,65,900/- during a search at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad, leading to the seizure of ?12,00,000/-. Subsequent investigations revealed undisclosed income from various bank accounts. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (c) and levied a penalty of ?2,80,394/- for the assessment year 2002-2003. This was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant challenged the penalty, contending that he bona fidely believed he need not disclose the particulars. 2. Whether the Appellant/Assessee is Guilty of "Furnishing of Inaccurate Particulars" or "Concealment of Particulars of Income": The appellant argued that the authorities did not clearly establish whether he was guilty of "furnishing of inaccurate particulars" or "concealment of particulars of income." The court noted that the appellant had not raised this issue before the lower authorities, and thus, no such finding was required to be recorded by them. The court emphasized that failure to disclose income and failure to explain the reasons for the same amounts to concealment under Explanation 3 to Section 271 (1) (c). 3. Applicability of Explanation 1 to Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act: Explanation 1 to Section 271 (1) (c) states that if a person fails to offer an explanation or the explanation is found to be false, the amount added or disallowed in computing total income shall be deemed to represent concealed income. The court found that the appellant/assessee failed to disclose substantial income from various sources and did not provide a satisfactory explanation, thus attracting the penalty under this provision. 4. Whether the Appellant/Assessee's Failure to Disclose Income was Bona Fide: The appellant claimed that his failure to disclose the income was bona fide. However, the court noted that the appellant, being a Sales Tax Practitioner, was well aware of the consequences of non-disclosure. The court held that the appellant's contention of bona fide belief was not acceptable, especially given his professional background. The appellant did not raise this plea before the lower authorities, and thus, it could not be considered at this stage. 5. Whether the High Court can Interfere with the Factual Findings of the Lower Authorities under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act: The court reiterated that it can interfere under Section 260-A only if there is a substantial question of law. The court cited precedents to emphasize that findings of fact by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be reviewed by the High Court only if they are perverse. The court found no substantial question of law in the appellant's case, as the issue of bona fides is a question of fact. Thus, the court upheld the findings of the lower authorities. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission, confirming the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The court found no substantial question of law to interfere with the penalty imposed under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant/assessee's plea of bona fide belief was rejected, and the penalty for concealment of income was upheld.
|
