9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for assessment year 1988-89. 2. Validity of revised return filed by the assessee. 3. Assurance by survey officers regarding immunity from penalty. 4. Discrepancies related to the financial year 1988-89. 5. Comparison with the sister concern's case where no penalty was imposed. 6. Burden of proof on the Assessing Officer. 7. Relevance of affidavits and cross-examination requests. 8. Legal precedents and their applicability. Detailed Analysis: 1. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c): The primary issue in this appeal is the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 34,663 under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1988-89. The assessee, a dealer in gold and silver ornaments, filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 66,810, which was accepted. Subsequently, a survey under section 133A led to the assessee offering an additional income of Rs. 1,50,000 in a revised return. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings, asserting that there was concealment of income, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). 2. Validity of Revised Return: The assessee argued that the revised return filed on 30th March 1989 was non-est since it was filed after the original assessment under section 143(1). The contention was that such a return could only be treated as information and not as a basis for a valid assessment. The assessee claimed that no notice under section 148 was issued, rendering the assessment illegal. However, the department maintained that the assessment was valid under section 143(2)(b) after the approval of the DCIT. 3. Assurance by Survey Officers: The assessee claimed that the additional income was offered based on an assurance from the survey officers that no penalty would be imposed. This was supported by an affidavit and letters requesting cross-examination of the officers, which the Assessing Officer denied, stating there was no provision for such cross-examination in the Income-tax Act. The department argued that the affidavit was self-serving and not substantiated by any material evidence. 4. Discrepancies Related to Financial Year 1988-89: The discrepancies amounting to Rs. 14,228 pertained to transactions relevant to the financial year 1988-89, which were added to the income for the assessment year 1988-89. The assessee contended that these discrepancies related to the financial year 1988-89, relevant to the assessment year 1989-90, and thus should not have been included in the assessment year 1988-89. 5. Comparison with Sister Concern's Case: A similar survey conducted at the premises of the sister concern, M/s. Solanki Jewellers, resulted in an additional income offer of Rs. 6.5 lakhs, but no penalty was initiated in that case. The assessee argued that this inconsistency supported their case against the penalty. 6. Burden of Proof on Assessing Officer: The tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lay on the department to show that the addition represented the assessee's income for the year under consideration and that particulars were concealed. The department failed to provide direct evidence of discrepancies for the assessment year 1988-89. 7. Relevance of Affidavits and Cross-Examination Requests: The tribunal noted that the affidavit filed by the assessee, detailing the assurance given by the survey officers, was not rebutted by the department. The failure to allow cross-examination or make inquiries from the concerned officers was seen as a lapse on the part of the Assessing Officer. 8. Legal Precedents and Their Applicability: The tribunal referred to various legal precedents, including the Supreme Court decision in Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT, which supported the acceptance of uncontroverted affidavits. The tribunal also distinguished the present case from other cases cited by the department, noting differences in facts and circumstances. Conclusion: The tribunal concluded that the department failed to discharge its burden of proving that the addition represented the assessee's concealed income for the assessment year 1988-89. The penalty order was set aside, and the penalty was cancelled, allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee.
|
