2021 (5) TMI 626 - AT - Income Tax

Levying penalty u/s 271(1) (c) - bogus accommodation entries - HELD THAT - Several notices were returned unserved and hence we are proceeding to dispose of the appeal by hearing learned Departmental Representative and perusing records. We note that in this case the assessee was engaging into bogus accommodation entries. The gross receipt shown income was estimated by the AO @ 0.75%. Assessee did not contest quantum. In penalty and appellate proceedings also it did not make convincing submission. It is noted that the issue in dispute was bogus expenses. CIT(A) has relied upon the decision in the case of Kalindi Rail Nirman Engineering Ltd. 2014 (4) TMI 679 - DELHI HIGH COURT for sustaining levy of penalty. In our considered opinion learned CIT(A) has passed reasonable order. Appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act - Accuracy of income calculation - Applicability of surcharge - Proper documentation of expenses - Estimation of income by AO - Dispute over penalty calculation based on original return versus earlier assessment.

Analysis:

1. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):
The case involved the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on the assessee. The penalty amount in question was &8377; 2,32,305. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated the penalty due to the inaccurate particulars of income furnished by the assessee. The dispute arose from the estimation of income by the AO after a search action was conducted on the Vakrangee Group, which included the assessee. The AO estimated the income at &8377; 15,11,441, representing 0.75% of the gross receipts. The assessee did not contest this estimation, leading to the imposition of the penalty.

2. Accuracy of Income Calculation:
The assessee contended that the penalty was unjustified as the AO had estimated the income in the reassessment order. However, the CIT(A) upheld the penalty, stating that the assessee failed to provide proper third-party support for claimed expenses of &8377; 20.05 crores. The CIT(A) emphasized that the intention of the assessee was to disclose a lower income than actually earned, justifying the penalty under section 271(1)(c).

3. Applicability of Surcharge and Documentation of Expenses:
The assessee also challenged the calculation of tax at a rate of 33.99%, including a surcharge of 10%, arguing that surcharge should not apply as the income did not exceed &8377; 1 crore. However, the focus of the dispute was on the lack of proper documentation for the claimed expenses, leading to the rejection of book results and estimation of income by the AO.

4. Dispute over Penalty Calculation Based on Original Return:
Another contention raised by the assessee was regarding the penalty calculation based on the difference between the income computed in the reassessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and the income shown in the original return. The CIT(A) justified the penalty calculation based on the reassessment order, emphasizing the importance of accurate income disclosure and proper documentation.

5. Judicial Precedent and Final Decision:
The CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kalindi Rail Nirman Engg. Ltd. to support the imposition of the penalty based on estimated additions to income. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the penalty was justified given the circumstances of the case, where the assessee failed to substantiate expenses and disclosed lower income intentionally. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, and the penalty amount of &8377; 2,32,305 was upheld.

Overall, the judgment emphasized the importance of accurate income disclosure, proper documentation, and the consequences of failing to provide supporting evidence for claimed expenses.