2016 (12) TMI 1290 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty under section 271(1)( c ) - addition on basis of loose paper found in search - Held that - Addition made by the AO on the basis of loose papers was reduced to 10% of the said addition and thus the addition which survived at FAA level was ₹ 21,47,795/-. We further find that the addition was made by the AO on the basis of impounded documents which contains entries which the assessee could not explain and added the entire amount as appearing in the said loose papers which according to the assessee were working and estimates. The assessee used to claim 90 to 95% expenditure. We are of the opinion that the penalty in view of Explanation (1) to section 271(1) of the Act can only be imposed where the assessee failed to offer the explanation or offer an explanation which is found by the AO to be false or the assessee offered explanation which is not able to substantiate and not otherwise. In the present case, both these conditions are not existence and we therefore, are not in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the tax authorities. Accordingly, we delete the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on unaccounted business receipts and expenses.
- Justification of penalty imposition by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A).
- Appeal against the penalty imposition and the subsequent decision by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order confirming a penalty of ?7,21,264 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessment was completed by the AO, adding unaccounted receipts of ?2,14,27,947 as business income, and disallowing expenses leading to a total income of ?2,34,55,598. Subsequently, a penalty notice was issued under section 271(1)(c) based on the unaccounted receipts. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, stating that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed income, leading to the penalty imposition.

2. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the unaccounted business receipts formed the basis of income estimation and penalty imposition. The ITAT Mumbai also confirmed the unaccounted receipts, supporting the penalty imposition. The Assessing Officer issued a revised notice for penalty after the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal noted that the penalty can be imposed if the assessee fails to provide a satisfactory explanation, which was not the case here. The Tribunal found no grounds for penalty imposition and thus deleted the penalty.

3. The appellant argued that the addition was based on estimation and conjecture, leading to a difference of opinion among tax authorities. The appellant contended that penalties cannot be levied based on estimations or conjectures. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that penalty imposition requires the failure to provide a satisfactory explanation, which was not proven in this case. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty was unjustified and, therefore, allowed the appeal, deleting the penalty.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the penalty imposition was not warranted as the assessee had not failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the unaccounted receipts. The Tribunal set aside the order confirming the penalty and directed the deletion of the penalty amount. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was deleted.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment comprehensively, outlining the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's decision in each aspect of the case.