2015 (7) TMI 404 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty levied u/s.271(l)(c) - addition made u/s.68 - Held that - The only legal point which goes against the Assessee was that he has not furnished the evidences in support of the material facts pertaining to cash credits introduced in the books of account. In this case, the Assessee has offered an explanation giving reasons of his hardship of not producing certain confirmation letters, etc. Since the penalty proceedings are undisputedly a distinct proceedings from the assessment proceedings; therefore, the addition confirmed in the assessment proceedings are to be judged independently instead of drawing any conclusion from those proceedings in a matter concerned with the concealment penalty. We, therefore, hold that merely on the ground that a part confirmation was made u/s.68 of IT Act in the case of the Assessee should not be considered as a valid ground for levy of concealment penalty. We, therefore, reverse the factual as well as legal findings of the authorities below and direct to delete the penalty levied. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 3,78,274.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-XX, Ahmedabad, confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 3,78,274. The case involved an addition of Rs. 1,91,96,156 made under section 68 of the IT Act in the initial assessment order. This addition was confirmed by the CIT(A) in the first round of proceedings. However, the Tribunal later restored the matter back to the AO. Subsequently, a fresh assessment order was passed, leading to the imposition of the penalty in question.

2. The CIT(A) granted substantial relief to the Assessee for the assessment year 1989-90, confirming an addition of Rs. 7,25,850 as unexplained cash credit. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was imposed on the remaining balance amount. The Assessee argued that due to the passage of over 16 years, confirmation letters and details of the depositors were not available. The Assessee contended that the Revenue Department failed to investigate the correctness of the depositors' information provided in the Income Tax Return.

3. The Assessee further argued that the penalty should not be levied under section 271(1)(c) as the issue of addition under section 68 had been settled in favor of the Assessee in a previous case. The Revenue, on the other hand, supported the penalty imposition, highlighting the Assessee's failure to provide essential information such as confirmation letters and details of cash creditors.

4. The Tribunal considered the complex history of the case and the Assessee's challenges in collecting evidence after a significant time lapse. Citing a decision of the Gujarat High Court, the Tribunal emphasized the need for the Revenue Department to make efforts beyond treating cash credits as income to justify imposing a penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal also referenced other decisions supporting the Assessee's argument that the penalty should not be imposed solely based on the lack of supporting evidence for cash credits.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified in this case. It emphasized that the penalty proceedings should be considered independently from the assessment proceedings and that the Assessee's explanation for the lack of certain documents should be taken into account. The Tribunal reversed the findings of the lower authorities and directed the deletion of the penalty, allowing the Assessee's appeal.