2021 (6) TMI 654 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - concealment of particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars - HELD THAT - AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimation basis without adducing any evidence on record for concealment of income. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is liable to be imposed only where the assessee has concealed its particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Action of making addition on ad hoc basis does not result into imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and hence cannot be termed as either concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is liable to be imposed only where the assessee has concealed its particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Action of making addition on ad hoc basis does not result into imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and hence cannot be termed as either concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Challenge to deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)
- Justification of penalty imposition by the Assessing Officer
- Consideration of evidence for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars
- Legal basis for sustaining penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to Deletion of Penalty
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The Assessing Officer had imposed a penalty of ?9,69,000 for the assessment year 2009–10, based on disallowance of bogus purchases made by the assessee. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the penalty by following the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench.

Issue 2: Justification of Penalty Imposition
The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act after disallowing bogus purchases amounting to ?3,56,16,927. The penalty was imposed based on the disallowance of ?28,49,354 (8% of the total bogus purchase amount). The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had shown purchases from suspicious parties providing accommodation entries without actual business transactions, leading to inaccurate particulars of income.

Issue 3: Evidence for Concealment of Income
The learned Commissioner (Appeals) considered the failure of the appellant to provide adequate evidence for the alleged purchases from hawala suppliers. It was noted that there was no specific adverse material to prove the purchases were bogus. The Tribunal had estimated the addition at 8% of the alleged bogus purchases, based on circumstantial evidence, without concrete proof of concealment of income.

Issue 4: Legal Basis for Penalty Sustenance
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty, emphasizing that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is applicable only for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. It was highlighted that when additions are made on an estimate basis without concrete evidence of concealment, the penalty is not sustainable. The Tribunal cited various case laws supporting this principle, emphasizing the need for concrete proof of concealment for penalty imposition.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the deletion of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The judgment underscored the importance of concrete evidence to establish concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars for penalty imposition, especially when additions are made on an estimate basis without substantiated proof.