2018 (11) TMI 1547 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - deeming addition under section 68 - specification under which limb penalty proceedings are initiated - Held that - Assessee was aware about under which limb penalty has been initiated. Further it is observed that while passing penalty order, Ld.AO levied penalty for concealment. Thus we do not find any merit in arguments advanced by Ld.Counsel regarding jurisdiction of Ld. AO in passing penalty order. Assessee had filed details regarding deposits and sources from where deposits have been made in bank account. Merely because parties were not produced before Ld.AO to establish genuineness of transaction, cannot lead to concealment. At the most addition deserves to be sustained as has been already confirmed by this Tribunal. In our view alleged addition forms part of records and therefore there cannot be any concealment as has been alleged by authorities below. We are therefore inclined to delete penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty appeals against order confirming penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Years 1998-99 to 2000-01. Legal issue challenged: Penalty proceedings initiated without specific charge.

Analysis:
1. Background: The original assessment by the Ld.AO resulted in additions for unexplained bank deposits/loans, leading to penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income.

2. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings: The Ld.AO issued notice under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealing income. The appellant's appeal against the quantum assessment was dismissed, asserting failure to substantiate agricultural income claims.

3. Confirmation of Penalty: The Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty order, prompting the appellant to appeal before the ITAT Delhi.

4. Additional Ground: The appellant challenged the initiation of penalty proceedings without a specific charge, citing the National Thermal Power Company Ltd. case. The ITAT admitted this legal issue for all three assessment years.

5. Argument and Decision: The appellant argued that the penalty initiation was vague, but the ITAT sided with the Ld.Sr.DR, stating the penalty for concealment was clear in the assessment order, dismissing the additional ground.

6. Merits of the Case: The appellant detailed the bank deposits, including agricultural income and advances from various parties, supported by documents. The Ld.Sr.DR contended the failure to establish agricultural income and discharge the onus under section 68 of the Act.

7. ITAT's Decision: The ITAT found the appellant provided details of deposits and sources, noting that the lack of producing parties before the Ld.AO does not imply concealment. The Tribunal concluded that the addition was already confirmed and, therefore, deleted the penalty, allowing the grounds raised by the appellant on merits.

8. Outcome: The ITAT allowed the appeals for the Assessment Years 1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-01, pronouncing the order on 27/11/2018.