2018 (7) TMI 1313 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271 - unexplained cash credit - Held that - The funds which are given as loan to the assessee were undisputedly raised through a loan taken from bank to the tune of ₹ 1 lakh and from kacha ahratiaya M/ s. Des Raj And Co., to the tune of ₹ 1 lakh which was affirmed to have been advanced as loan to the assessee, however, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) doubted the genuineness of the loan on the basis of probabilities. Although there are contrary judgments of various courts with regard to the levy of penalty on the addition, which based upon the probabilities, however, we are of the considered opinion that inassuch as the penalty is not warranted on the addition based upon the probabilities, hence, we are inclined to delete the same by setting aside the order impugned herein passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for unexplained credit as loan from Sh. Barinder Pal Singh.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant raised multiple grounds of appeal challenging the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for a loan taken from Sh. Barinder Pal Singh. The facts of the case involved a quantum order passed by the Assessing Officer, sustained by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), followed by a remand on certain issues. Subsequently, a penalty order was passed based on fresh assessment, imposing a penalty on the concealed income. The Commissioner partly deleted the penalty on certain additions but confirmed the penalty on the loan from Sh. Barinder Pal Singh.

The main issue in this case was the levy of penalty on the amount claimed as a loan from Sh. Barinder Pal Singh. The appellant contended that the loan was genuine and provided evidence of the source of funds. The Commissioner, however, doubted the genuineness of the loan based on probabilities. Despite conflicting judgments on penalties based on probabilities, the Tribunal held that penalty in such cases is not warranted. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner and deleted the penalty imposed.

The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by the authorized representative regarding other grounds of appeal but deemed it unnecessary to address them since the penalty was deleted based on the main issue. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, ruling in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for the unexplained credit claimed as a loan from Sh. Barinder Pal Singh. The decision highlighted the importance of genuine sources of funds and the requirement for concrete evidence to support such claims to avoid penalties based on probabilities.