9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for undisclosed income. Analysis: The case involved an appeal by the assessee against the penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1976-77. The penalty was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC), leading to the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The assessee, a registered firm, was assessed on a total income higher than the income returned, primarily due to the addition of income from undisclosed sources amounting to Rs. 10,000 in the name of a specific individual, Sri Kanhiya Lal. The assessee failed to provide confirmatory evidence or the account of Sri Kanhiya Lal but submitted an affidavit from a partner confirming the receipt and outstanding amount. The assessee eventually surrendered the amount during the assessment proceedings to avoid penalty, leading to the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 5,360 by the ITO. The assessee's counsel argued that the surrender was made to avoid penalty as suggested by the ITO, citing a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision that penalty cannot be levied solely based on surrendered items without evidence of it being income. However, the Tribunal noted the change in the law post the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, which introduced an Explanation deeming unexplained income as concealed income. The Tribunal highlighted that the burden was on the assessee to substantiate the explanation and disclose all relevant facts to avoid penalty. In this case, the assessee failed to provide substantial evidence, with only a self-serving affidavit submitted, which lacked evidentiary value. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision by the Allahabad High Court emphasizing the unreliability of uncontroverted affidavits. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the penalty under section 271(1)(c) with the Explanation 1, as the assessee did not meet the requirements to prove the bona fide nature of the explanation provided. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty was rightly imposed under the amended provisions of the law, dismissing the appeal and upholding the AAC's order. As the minimum penalty was already imposed, there was no basis for further reduction as requested by the assessee's counsel. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the penalty under section 271(1)(c) and dismissed the appeal. In summary, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the assessee's failure to substantiate the explanation for undisclosed income, leading to the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) with the Explanation 1. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing concrete evidence and meeting the statutory requirements to avoid penalties for concealed income, ultimately upholding the penalty imposed by the ITO and confirmed by the AAC.
|
