9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal against penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1976-77. - Discrepancy in credits amounting to Rs. 5,000 in the name of a creditor. - Tribunal's acceptance of the assessee's version regarding the credit of Rs. 3,000. - Interpretation of penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) in light of judicial precedents. - Assessment of the consistency of the assessee's statements regarding the receipt of funds. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune pertains to the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1976-77. The dispute arose from the discrepancy in credits amounting to Rs. 5,000 in the name of a creditor, which the Income Tax Officer (ITO) treated as undisclosed sources. The assessee contested this treatment during the penal proceedings, explaining that the creditor had confirmed the deposit. The Tribunal had earlier accepted the assessee's version regarding the credit of Rs. 3,000 but upheld the addition of Rs. 2,000 due to lack of satisfactory proof of the source of the credit. The assessee relied on judicial precedents emphasizing that the department must establish that the disputed amount constitutes income and prove conscious concealment by the assessee to levy a penalty. The ld. counsel for the assessee cited relevant case law to support the contention that penal proceedings require cogent material or evidence of deliberate concealment by the assessee, beyond mere additions in the original assessment. The department's argument, supported by a precedent, highlighted the inconsistent statements made by the assessee regarding the receipt of funds, indicating a lack of regard for truth and justifying the penalty imposition. However, the Tribunal disagreed with the department's stance, finding that the assessee's receipt of Rs. 5,000 from the creditor was consistent, despite variations in the creditor's deposition. The Tribunal aligned with the legal principles emphasizing the need for concrete evidence of deliberate concealment to sustain a penalty under section 271(1)(c). In conclusion, the Tribunal found no justification for the penalty imposed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) and overturned the decision, canceling the penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal's decision was based on the application of legal principles and precedents, emphasizing the necessity of concrete evidence of deliberate concealment to uphold a penalty. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, setting aside the penalty imposed by the AAC.
|
