9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 707 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - conscious concealment of facts by the assessee - non disclosure of bank accounts in which cash was deposited - Held that - The assessee was well aware that he was having three bank accounts and deposited cash therein, did not disclosed the amounts and also the accounts to the Department, therefore, it was a conscious and deliberate act on the part of the assessee to hide something, consequently, the penalty was rightly imposed. It is also noted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer on this count was accepted by the assessee and no appeal was filed on quantum addition knowing-fully well that there is conscious concealment of facts by the assessee. For imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, either there should be concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. The material facts, available on record clearly indicates that the assessee deliberately concealed his income/furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, therefore, in my view, the penalty was rightly imposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Confirmation of Penalty Imposed Under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The assessee contested the order dated 30/01/2015 by the First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, which confirmed a penalty of ?8,96,144/- imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's counsel argued that the non-disclosure of bank accounts was an error and cited various case laws to support their position that there was no concealment of income. The Revenue, represented by Ms. Mahua Sarkar, argued that the penalty was justified as the assessee failed to explain the source of cash deposits, indicating clear concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Upon review, it was found that the assessee had deposited cash in multiple bank accounts which were not disclosed in the return of income. The Assessing Officer discovered a negative cash balance of ?22,79,793/- which was unexplained, leading to its addition as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. The First Appellate Authority upheld this addition, and the Tribunal found no evidence provided by the assessee to explain the source of the cash deposits, thereby confirming the concealment of income. The Tribunal analyzed the case laws cited by the assessee, noting that the facts in those cases were different from the present case. In the cited cases, there were findings of bona fide mistakes or acceptance of explanations by the authorities, which was not the situation here. The Tribunal also referenced the case of MAK DATA P. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, where the Supreme Court held that voluntary disclosure does not absolve an assessee from penalty if there is concealment of income. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's actions were a conscious attempt to hide income, justifying the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal reiterated the legal provisions under Section 271(1)(c) and the relevant explanations, emphasizing that the burden of proof lies on the assessee to provide a bona fide explanation for discrepancies. Since the assessee failed to do so, the penalty was deemed appropriate. The Tribunal cited multiple cases supporting the imposition of penalties for deliberate concealment of income, concluding that the penalty was rightly imposed and upheld by the lower authorities. Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the penalty imposed on the assessee for concealment of income. This order was pronounced in the presence of representatives from both sides on 30/08/2016.
|
