1981 (9) TMI 212 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Rs. 5,000 on the assessee.
2. Explanation provided by the assessee regarding cash deposits in question.
3. Application of Explanation to section 271(1)(c) and burden of proof on the assessee.
4. Inconsistencies in the statements of the depositor and its impact on the penalty imposition.

Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: The primary issue in this case is the levy of a penalty of Rs. 5,000 under section 271(1)(c) on the assessee. The penalty was imposed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) based on the assessee's inability to satisfactorily explain a cash credit of Rs. 5,000, which the ITO deemed as undisclosed income from suspicious sources.

Issue 2: The assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), was engaged in various businesses, including money lending. The cash deposits in question were made by a depositor who initially stated that the amount was deposited in 1972. However, in a subsequent statement to the ITO, the depositor claimed the deposit was made in 1971, leading to inconsistencies in the statements. The assessee provided a confirming letter from the depositor and an affidavit later, but the ITO did not cross-examine the depositor on the affidavit.

Issue 3: The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) confirmed the penalty, citing inconsistency in statements and invoking the Explanation to section 271(1)(c). The assessee argued that the Explanation should not apply as there was no fraud or neglect on their part, and they had produced the depositor to support their explanation. The assessee contended that the ITO did not base the case on the Explanation during the assessment, depriving them of an opportunity to address it.

Issue 4: During the proceedings, the parties highlighted inconsistencies in the depositor's statements to support their arguments. The Departmental Representative emphasized these inconsistencies and relied on legal precedents to justify the penalty imposition. However, the Tribunal, after considering the submissions, found that the discrepancies in the depositor's statements were not enough to prove concealment by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the ITO did not cross-examine the depositor on the affidavit or provide evidence to support the charge of concealment. Ultimately, the Tribunal canceled the penalty, stating that the assessee had discharged their burden under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) by producing the depositor and therefore, the penalty was unjustified.