9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 185 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - undisclosed deposits - Held that - In the instant case the assessee having declared the additional income only after discovery of the Assessing Officer with regard to total deposits not reflected in the balance sheet it was a clear case of concealment of income and non-recording of the deposits in the balance sheet would amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Under these circumstances the order passed by the Ld CIT (A) in levying penalty does not call for any interference. Accordingly appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Validity of notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 3. Whether the revised return filed by the assessee can be considered voluntary. 4. Whether the assessee concealed income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Detailed Analysis: 1. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c): The primary issue in this appeal is the levy of penalty of ?1,40,000/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee was initially assessed on an income of ?7,57,350/- for the assessment year 1999-2000. However, upon discovering unaccounted cash deposits totaling ?10,49,150/- in the assessee's bank accounts, the Assessing Officer (A.O) reopened the assessment and issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The assessee then filed a revised return declaring an additional income of ?5,50,000/-. The A.O treated this amount as concealed income and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c), concluding that the assessee had concealed income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 2. Validity of Notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c): The assessee challenged the validity of the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) on the grounds that the A.O did not strike off the inappropriate portion in the notice, leading to ambiguity. The Tribunal, however, held that the assessment order and the penalty order clearly specified that the penalty was being levied for both concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the notice was deemed valid as the assessee was adequately informed of the charges against him. 3. Voluntariness of the Revised Return: The assessee contended that the revised return, filed after the issuance of the notice under Section 148, should be considered voluntary and thus not attract penalty. The Tribunal referred to multiple judicial precedents, including CIT vs. Usha International Ltd., CIT vs. Rakesh Suri, and P. RajaSwamy Raja Jewelry vs. CIT, which held that a revised return filed after the detection of undisclosed income by the department cannot be considered voluntary. The Tribunal concluded that the revised return filed by the assessee was not voluntary as it was prompted by the detection of unaccounted cash deposits by the A.O. 4. Concealment of Income and Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars: The Tribunal examined whether the assessee had indeed concealed income and furnished inaccurate particulars. It was found that the assessee did not reflect the cash deposits in the balance sheet and only admitted additional income after being cornered by the A.O's notice. The Tribunal noted that the A.O had clearly mentioned in both the assessment and penalty orders that the penalty was being levied for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal held that the assessee's actions amounted to both concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars, justifying the levy of penalty. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, upholding the penalty of ?1,40,000/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the revised return filed by the assessee was not voluntary and that the assessee had indeed concealed income and furnished inaccurate particulars. The notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was deemed valid as it adequately informed the assessee of the charges. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in the open court on 28th November 2017.
|
