9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Penalty for concealment of income based on failure to disclose bonus shares in the income tax returns. Detailed Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad-C dealt with the issue of penalty for concealment of income arising from the failure of the assessee to disclose bonus shares in the income tax returns. The assessee had shown certain capital gains from what he termed as 'long-term capital assets', which included shares, some of which were bonus shares. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially accepted the returns but later reopened the assessment under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ITO made an addition to the income, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. Subsequently, a penalty was imposed on the assessee for concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Commissioner (Appeals) canceled the penalty, leading to the department's appeal. The departmental representative argued that the omission of disclosing the bonus shares in the income tax returns was not bona fide, as the assessee had provided some information about receiving bonus shares in the accompanying notes. It was contended that the assessee should have disclosed that part of the shares sold were bonus shares, irrespective of the Tribunal's previous decision regarding the treatment of bonus shares as long-term capital assets. The representative emphasized that the omission to disclose the nature of the shares sold within 24 months was not justified. On the other hand, the assessee's advocate contended that at the time of filing the returns, the Tribunal's decision regarding bonus shares being considered long-term capital assets was valid law. The advocate argued that the subsequent reversal of this decision by the High Court was immaterial, as the matter was still under consideration by the Supreme Court. The advocate highlighted that the wealth-tax return filed after the income tax return did disclose the sale of bonus shares, leading to the reopening of the assessment. It was further argued that the Tribunal's decision upholding the reopening was subject to reference to the High Court, indicating the debatable nature of the issue. The Tribunal considered whether the assessee had the mens rea, the intention to conceal income, by not disclosing the bonus shares in the income tax returns. The Tribunal acknowledged that while the assessee could have disclosed the information and claimed exemption based on the Tribunal's order, the failure to do so did not establish positive dishonesty or mens rea. The Tribunal held that the absence of exemplary honesty does not equate to positive dishonesty, and penalizing the assessee for not following the better course of action was not warranted. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and rejected the department's appeals.
|
