Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (3) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2018 (3) TMI 1583 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Application of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c).
3. Validity of proceedings initiated under section 148 instead of section 153C.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The appeals concern penalties levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for concealing income. The appellants argued that the additional income declared was based on estimates and there was no concrete evidence found during the search. They contended that the penalty was unjustified as the declaration was made to cooperate and buy peace with the department. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings after noting that the additional income was declared post-search and was based on documents indicating unaccounted sales. The AO concluded that the assessee had concealed particulars of income, warranting penalty under section 271(1)(c).

2. Application of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c):
Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) was invoked for levying penalties. This provision deems that if during a search, any money, bullion, jewellery, valuable articles, or documents are found and not declared in the return filed before the search, it is considered as concealed income. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, referencing a similar case (Mrs. Sarita Kaur Manjeet Singh Chopra Vs. ITO) where the penalty was justified under Explanation 5A for income detected during search operations. The Tribunal noted that the additional income was declared only after the search and based on seized documents, validating the penalty under Explanation 5A.

3. Validity of proceedings initiated under section 148 instead of section 153C:
The appellants raised an additional ground challenging the jurisdiction of the AO in issuing notices under section 148 instead of section 153C. They argued that since the documents were found during a search on a person other than the assessee, the correct procedure was under section 153C. The Tribunal agreed, stating that section 153C should have been invoked as it specifically deals with assessments based on documents found during a search on another person. The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under section 148 was incorrect, rendering the penalty proceedings invalid. Consequently, the penalties levied under section 271(1)(c) were deleted for the partnership firms, as the assessments should have been under section 153C.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals concerning the individual assessee, upholding the penalties under section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A. However, the appeals for the partnership firms were allowed, as the Tribunal found that the assessments should have been conducted under section 153C, not section 148, invalidating the penalty proceedings.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates