2016 (11) TMI 1053 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty under section 271D read with section 269SS - agricultural income receipt - Held that - The assessee has explained that the amount was out of the proceeds of agricultural income which was deposited pertaining to the share of the family members which was deposited in the bank account held by him jointly with his son. Further, we find that the assessee had also furnished copies of affidavits wherein the wife of the assessee Sayarkunwar Deora and daughter in law of the assessee Bhuvnesh Deora have confirmed in their respective affidavits that they jointly owned land with their family members and during the year they had received their share of agricultural income which was deposited in the joint bank account of the assessee with his son Shri Narendra Bhuvnesh Deora. It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee is the husband of Sayarkunwar Deora and Shri Narendra Bhuvnesh Deora is the husband of Bhuvnesh Deora. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the assessee had received any loan from his family members. The nature of deposits has been duly explained. The other family members of the assessee have never admitted that they had given any loan to the assessee rather the plea is that the amount has been deposited in the joint saving bank account of the family. Penalty on account of loan from his son Shri Narendra Bhuvnesh Deora - Held that - We find that from the record that the said account in question was jointly held by the assessee along with Shri Narendra Bhuvnesh Deora. Under these circumstances, the amount in question cannot be said to be received by the assessee as loan rather the amount in question was deposited by Shri Narendra Bhuvnesh Deora in the joint account and it cannot, in any manner, be termed as a loan to the assessee as Shri Narendra Bhuvnesh Deora himself was also the holder of the account along with the assessee. It has been pleaded that the other two ladies have also deposited the said amount in the family account who happened to be the wives of the assessee and his son (Joint account holders). Under these circumstances, it cannot be said to be a case of giving loan by the said persons to the assessee. In our view, the lower authorities were not justified in levying the impugned penalty under section 271D - Decided in favour of assessee Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - AO found certain amount deposited in the bank account of the assessee - Held that - Undisputedly, the assessment proceedings and the penalty proceedings are separate and distinct proceedings. Merely because, the additions have been made into the income of the assessee, because of lack of evidence regarding the claim put-forth by the assessee, but that itself is not sufficient for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The additions in this case have been made not because that the AO has disproved the case of the assessee but because of the lack of evidence on the part of the assessee to prove his claim. The facts and circumstances of the case do not suggest that the claim of the assessee has been proved to be wrong or false. The factum of ownership of the agricultural land of the assessee has not been denied. Under these circumstances, we do not find it a fit case for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Confirmation of penalty under section 271D read with section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
- Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Issue 1: Confirmation of Penalty under Section 271D read with Section 269SS:
The assessee contested the penalty under section 271D for receiving cash loans, which were deemed as unexplained income by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO added the amount as unexplained income and imposed the penalty. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty. However, the assessee clarified that the deposits were proceeds of agricultural income shared by family members and deposited in a joint account. Affidavits from family members supported this claim. The Tribunal noted that the joint account holder, who deposited the amount in question, was also the son of the assessee. Therefore, it was not a loan to the assessee but a deposit by a joint account holder. The Tribunal found the penalty unjustified and ordered its deletion.

Issue 2: Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act:
In this case, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was imposed due to the AO treating a deposit as unexplained income because of insufficient evidence of agricultural operations. The assessee owned agricultural land, but the AO demanded evidence of cultivation activities. The Tribunal observed that the AO did not disprove the claim of agricultural income but added the amount due to lack of evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessment and penalty proceedings are distinct. Merely lacking evidence does not warrant penalty unless there is proof of inaccurate particulars or income concealment. As the ownership of agricultural land was not contested, the Tribunal deemed the penalty unjustified and ordered its deletion.

In conclusion, both penalties imposed on the assessee were deemed unjustified by the Tribunal, leading to the deletion of the penalties in both cases.