9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 98 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - assessee along with three other co-owners sold an inherited piece of land - AO invoking the provisions of Sec.50C of the Act, computed the amount of long term capital gains and made the addition - HELD THAT - The assessee was under the bonafide belief that since he has not received any consideration during the relevant year, the sale is not complete and no profits accrued to him. The Revenue also could not place on record any evidence of actual receipt of any amount by the assessee during the year under consideration. The procedure of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) shall arise and only arise if there is any concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. To determine these factors, the facts and circumstances are essential. In the present facts, when the charge is of the concealment of income, the facts does not suggest even on a remote basis that assessee has concealed his income rather the assessee has acted under bonafide belief and even the Revenue could not place on record any evidence of receipt of income regarding 1/4th share of the property by the assessee in the relevant year. Neither there is mens rea nor actus reus on the part of the assessee. We find that our view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C.Builders 2004 (1) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT - this is not a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) . Also see MOHAN LAL SHARMA. 2005 (4) TMI 22 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income Facts: The appellant, a Stenographer, sold inherited land along with co-owners but did not disclose the income from the sale in the belief that payment was not realized in the relevant year. The buyer's cheques were not cleared due to the Pen Co-operative Urban Bank's financial issues and RBI restrictions. Assessing Officer's Action: The AO computed long-term capital gains under Sec.50C and imposed a penalty of ?1,06,041 (100% of tax sought to be evaded) under Sec. 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income. CIT(A)'s Decision: The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, stating the appellant suppressed the transaction, showing an intention to conceal income. Appellate Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal found no evidence of actual receipt of income by the appellant in the relevant year. The appellant acted in good faith, believing the sale was incomplete due to non-receipt of consideration. Referring to K.C. Builders case, the Tribunal emphasized the need for evidence of concealment, which was lacking in this case. Legal Precedents: The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's judgment in K.C. Builders case and the Allahabad High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Mohanlal Sharma, emphasizing the absence of concealment of income in the absence of concrete evidence. Conclusion: Considering the facts, absence of mens rea or actus reus, and legal precedents, the Tribunal held that the penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) was unwarranted. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty, allowing the appellant's appeal. In summary, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune ruled in favor of the appellant, concluding that there was no concealment of income justifying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision was based on the lack of evidence of actual receipt of income, the appellant's good faith belief, and legal precedents emphasizing the need for concrete proof of concealment.
|
