9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 721 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT - Ld. CIT(A) upheld the levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) stating that the Explanations appended to section 271(1)(c), entirely indicate the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing the return. The object behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c) read with Explanations indicates that the said section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue. The penalty under that provision is a civil liability. Willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as is the case in the matter of prosecution u/s 276C of the Income-tax Act. We are of the view that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is well-reasoned and is in accordance with law, having regard to facts and circumstances of the present case. Impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) is, therefore, hereby confirmed. - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Sustaining Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. 3. Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Sustaining Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act: The primary issue in the appeal was the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to ?11,79,516. The penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) and upheld by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld. CIT(A)”], Ghaziabad. The AO determined that the assessee had deliberately concealed income and furnished inaccurate particulars. The Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the AO, stating that the assessee's explanation regarding the source of ?30,00,000/- was an afterthought and concocted to defraud the revenue. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, emphasizing that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the claimed gift from his father. 2. Addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act: The AO made an addition of ?30,00,000/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). The amount was found in possession of the assessee during the general assembly elections and was requisitioned by the Income Tax Department. Initially, the assessee claimed the amount was from the sale proceeds of his jewellery shop but later stated it was a gift from his father. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the father's capital account would be negative if the alleged gift was accepted, and the books of account were not produced to verify the sales. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee's explanation was not satisfactory and confirmed the addition. 3. Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act: The AO also made an addition of ?11,87,129/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, which was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). The AO contended that the assessee could not explain the source of a draft of ?20,00,000/- and only ?8,62,871/- was due from M/s Deepali Jewellers. The Ld. CIT(A) found this argument untenable, stating that the transaction was genuine and the creditworthiness was reasonably proved. The Tribunal did not interfere with the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete this addition. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and the addition under Section 69A, while agreeing with the deletion of the addition under Section 68. The Tribunal found the Ld. CIT(A)'s order well-reasoned and in accordance with the law, thereby upholding the findings without any interference.
|
