9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenging confirmation of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) at Rs. 74,391 and Rs. 35,250 respectively. Analysis: The assessee, a private limited company supervising construction activities, earned organizing fees. During search proceedings, certain deposits in bank accounts were found. The assessee explained these amounts were received from individuals booking properties in the buildings/schemes supervised by them. The assessee offered the amount for taxation in the respective assessment years to avoid litigation. The Assessing Officer (AO) taxed the same but initiated penalty proceedings, contending that the offer was conditional and imposed a penalty at 150% of the tax sought to be evaded, which was confirmed in the first appeal. The learned counsel for the assessee argued that the offer was voluntary and conditional, and concealment must be established for each item. Case laws were cited to support the argument that conditional admissions cannot be a basis for penalty. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative relied on precedents where admissions by the assessee were considered sufficient for penalty imposition. After considering the contentions, the Tribunal found that the terms of the disclosure offer made by the assessee were clear and conditional. The AO relied solely on the conditional offer without independently establishing concealment. The Tribunal held that the AO should have brought independent material for concealment on record, especially since the assessee had stipulated that non-acceptance of conditions should not be treated as admission. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal concluded that in the absence of independent evidence of concealment, the penalty was not justified, and therefore, the penalty was deleted, and the assessee's appeals were allowed.
|
