2014 (9) TMI 705 - HC - Income Tax

Deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Concealment of income Held that - The AO was required to verify the books of accounts as is done in scrutiny cases - the order of the Tribunal is valid as it has been rightly held by them that the order passed by the AO is an ex parte order - CIT (A) has referred that the first service of notice by affixture cannot be held to be valid, but, he has not quashed the assessment on this ground - the details which have been provided clearly revealed that the source of the advance made by the assessee to its sister concerns is advance received against sale of land and thus investment made by the assessee with its sister concerns stands explained - No contrary evidence has been produced by the revenue to suggest that what has been held by CIT (A) is contrary to the facts Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Best judgment assessment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2006-07.
2. Address verification and service of notices leading to addition of income.
3. Appeal by the respondent-assessee against the assessment order.
4. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order deleting the addition on merits.
5. Appeal by Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and deletion of penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
6. Tribunal's examination of the factual findings and dismissal of the appeal by Revenue.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a best judgment assessment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. The respondent-assessee declared a loss in their return, but the Assessing Officer made additions to the income due to lack of compliance and availability of details regarding fresh investments.

2. Address verification and service of notices played a crucial role in the case. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted discrepancies in the service of notices and highlighted the failure to verify the updated address of the assessee. Despite these issues, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted on merits by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

3. The respondent-assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order, challenging the additions made to their income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) examined the documents and contentions provided by the assessee, ultimately deleting the addition of income on the grounds of explained investments and legitimate sources of funds.

4. The Revenue appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and also contested the deletion of penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal reviewed the case, noting the factual findings and the failure of the Revenue to provide evidence contradicting the Commissioner's decision to delete the addition on merits.

5. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal after considering the factual findings and the lack of substantiated objections raised by the Revenue. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of maintaining accurate records and highlighted the deficiencies in the Revenue's documentation and response to the remand report.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to delete the addition on merits, emphasizing the need for proper verification and documentation in such cases. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed due to the lack of substantial evidence to challenge the Commissioner's decision.