9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 for undisclosed cash credits; Claim of immunity under the Amnesty Scheme; Interpretation of "before detection by the Department" in the context of concealment; Comparison with relevant case laws for penalty waiver. Analysis: 1. The appeal concerns the penalty of Rs. 1,00,832 imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, on the assessee, a registered firm, for undisclosed cash credits amounting to Rs. 1,05,000. The original assessment was reopened under section 147 due to the cash credits. The assessee claimed the amount as exempt but later surrendered it. The AO initiated penalty proceedings after the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the credits. 2. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Circular No. 451, Question No. 19, defines "before detection by the Department" as concealment not being prima facie belief but established through investigations. The AO's investigations revealed the cash credits were not genuine, leading to a notice under section 148. The assessee's claim of filing the return under the Amnesty Scheme was rejected as concealment was already detected before the scheme's invocation. 3. The assessee argued that the return was filed under the Amnesty Scheme, citing case laws for penalty waiver. However, the Tribunal held that the cases cited were distinguishable as they involved different factual circumstances. In those cases, full disclosure was made voluntarily, unlike in the present case where concealment was detected before the Amnesty Scheme was invoked. 4. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, emphasizing that the Revenue had already taken a lenient view by imposing the minimum penalty under the law. The assessee's plea for a lenient view was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal agreed with the findings of the authorities below and declined to interfere with the penalty imposed. In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the penalty under section 271(1)(c) as justified, as the concealment of income was detected before the Amnesty Scheme was invoked, and the case did not align with the cited case laws for penalty waiver. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the authorities below and dismissed the appeal.
|
