9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 218 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s.271(1)(c) - Whether assessee has concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of its income - addition towards bogus purchases, disallowance u/s. 80IB addition towards undisclosed income and expenditure - HELD THAT - On a careful perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the reasons given therein, we do not find any good reason to interfere and disturb the findings in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) in sustaining penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - CIT(A) has elaborately discussed the issues of additions/disallowances and rightly sustained the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the said additions and disallowances made by the AO. Thus, as the findings and observations of the Ld.CIT(A) have not been rebutted with evidences by the assessee, we do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer. Grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Sustaining penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. Penalty imposition without specifying the charge. 3. Applicability of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) instead of u/s 271AAA. 4. Penalty on alleged bogus purchases. 5. Penalty on disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB. 6. Penalty on addition towards alleged salary paid in cash. 7. Penalty on addition towards alleged additional undisclosed income. 8. Direction to consider loan without information and report from Assessing Officer. Detailed Analysis: 1. Sustaining Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Concealment or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars of Income: The assessee challenged the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for various assessment years. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) had made several additions and disallowances, including bogus purchases, disallowance under Section 80IB, and undisclosed income and expenses. The AO initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had elaborately considered the submissions and judicial pronouncements before sustaining the penalty. 2. Penalty Imposition Without Specifying the Charge: The Tribunal highlighted that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied for either concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is incumbent upon the AO to specify the charge. The Tribunal referred to judicial precedents which established that the absence of a clear finding on the charge renders the penalty order bad in law. However, in this case, the CIT(A) found that the AO had adequately justified the imposition of penalty for the specific charges. 3. Applicability of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Instead of u/s 271AAA: The assessee argued that the penalty should have been considered under Section 271AAA. The Tribunal noted that Section 271AAA applies to cases where the search was initiated after June 1, 2007, and the assessee meets specific conditions, including admitting undisclosed income and paying the due tax. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to meet these conditions, particularly in substantiating the manner of deriving the undisclosed income and paying the tax before filing the return. 4. Penalty on Alleged Bogus Purchases: The Tribunal upheld the penalty on bogus purchases, noting that similar issues had been decided against the assessee in previous assessment years. The CIT(A) had found that the assessee could not substantiate the allowability of its claims, and the penalty was justified. 5. Penalty on Disallowance of Deduction u/s 80IB: The Tribunal upheld the penalty on the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB. The CIT(A) had examined the facts and judicial pronouncements and found that the assessee's claim was incorrect. The penalty was justified as the assessee had made a wrong claim. 6. Penalty on Addition Towards Alleged Salary Paid in Cash: The Tribunal upheld the penalty on the addition towards alleged salary paid in cash. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had not properly explained the source of the cash payment, and the penalty was justified as the amount remained undisclosed. 7. Penalty on Addition Towards Alleged Additional Undisclosed Income: The Tribunal upheld the penalty on the addition towards alleged additional undisclosed income. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had not honored its statement made during the search, and the penalty was justified as the amount was part of the undisclosed income detected during the search. 8. Direction to Consider Loan Without Information and Report from Assessing Officer: The Tribunal directed the AO to verify whether the amount of ?5,69,00,000, which was not offered in the returns filed, had been taxed. If not, the AO was instructed to take remedial measures to protect the revenue's interest. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for all three assessment years, upholding the CIT(A)'s order in sustaining the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for various additions and disallowances. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s findings and observed that the assessee had not rebutted the findings with evidence. The penalty imposed by the AO was deemed justified and sustained.
|
