2016 (12) TMI 1339 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) - computation of long term/short term capital gain/loss undisclosed - surrender of additional income by way of revised returns - Held that - After going through the record it can be seen that the assessee has filed return of income for almost ₹ 1,31,64,117/-and for which almost 45,69,387/- tax was paid. If the assessee wanted to conceal the income or filed inaccurate particulars then he would have not filed letter dated 6/12/2010 before the Assessing Officer and immediately paid the amount taxable on the income which inadvertently not place before the authorities at the relevant time. This was mentioned in the affidavit produced before the CIT(A). As per the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001 (6) TMI 63 - SUPREME Court ) wherein it is held that though the assessee surrendered additional income by way of revised returns after persistent queries by AO once the revised returns have been regularized by Revenue the explanation of the assessee that he has declared additional income to buy peace and to come out of vexed litigation could be treated as bona fide and penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. Thus, the act of the assessee cannot be termed as inaccurate furnishing of income or concealment of income. Therefore, the CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer should have taken this aspect into consideration. This was totally ignored by both the authorities. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against penalty levy for undisclosed capital gains and non-consideration of affidavits.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge against penalty levy for undisclosed capital gains
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing and exports, failed to declare capital gains from share sales in the assessment. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, requesting details and evidence of capital gain computation. The appellant contended that the separation from partnership business led to the inadvertent omission of capital gains in the return. The appellant voluntarily rectified the error before any specific query, disclosing the omitted capital gains. The appellant's argument emphasized the unintentional nature of the mistake, supported by affidavits and explanations. The appellant's compliance during assessment proceedings and payment of substantial tax were highlighted to demonstrate good faith. The appellant cited legal precedents to support the contention that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) should not apply in cases of voluntary disclosure post queries by the tax authorities. The Tribunal found the appellant's actions as bona fide, not constituting concealment or inaccurate income furnishing, and allowed the appeal against the penalty levy.

Issue 2: Non-consideration of affidavits
The appellant's submissions, including affidavits, explaining the inadvertent omission of capital gains due to partnership restructuring and lack of access to relevant records, were crucial in establishing the unintentional nature of the error. The appellant's proactive disclosure of the omitted income and payment of taxes were supported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal highlighted the appellant's cooperation during assessment and the absence of any evidence suggesting deliberate concealment. The Tribunal referenced legal precedent to emphasize that voluntary disclosure post queries by tax authorities should be viewed as bona fide conduct, warranting the non-levy of penalties under Section 271(1)(c). The failure of the authorities to consider these aspects led to the appeal's allowance, indicating the importance of assessing the circumstances surrounding income disclosures before penal actions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the unintentional nature of the omission, the voluntary disclosure of income, and the absence of deliberate concealment. The judgment underscored the significance of considering the appellant's actions in good faith and in compliance with tax obligations, leading to the allowance of the appeal against the penalty levy.