2015 (11) TMI 532 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) on addition of rental income - assessment orders for the above assessment years were completed under 153C r.w.s. 153A - Held that - In the instant case, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars with regard to rental income and the claim of the assessee was not supported by any evidence for all the assessment years under consideration. Another contention of the assessee is that the assessee has paid huge tax, but, that is not at all a valid ground to delete the penalty. Under these facts and circumstances and respectfully following the decision in the case of Mak Data P. Ltd., vs. CIT (2013 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT), the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue stands sustained for all the assessment years - Decided against assessee. Unexplained sundry loan creditors - Held that - On perusal of the penalty order, the Assessing Officer has simply levied the penalty by clubbing all the additions. The penalty proceedings are different from assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings on estimated basis. There is no wilful concealment of income and the assessee has also offered huge amount of income for taxation in the assessment year under consideration. The assessee has also relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. S. Sankaran 241 ITR 825, wherein the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court has observed that mere addition to income at the instance of assessee would not warrant a finding of concealment of income or the levy of penalty. Mere addition of income agreed to by it itself is not the proof of concealment. The lower authorities are not correct in initiating penalty proceedings. After considering the above facts and circumstances, the well settled principles namely that the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are quite distinct and the findings given in the assessment order are not conclusive. Accordingly, mere addition of amount as income is not the criteria to levy penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee. Unexplained silver articles - Held that - Since receipt of silver articles received by the assessee as Sreedhanam and gift has been accepted by the Tribunal during quantum appeal proceedings, and confirming the addition to the extent of 50% of the total value of silver articles as undisclosed investment, mere confirmation of any addition agreed to by itself is not the proof of concealment. The authorities are not correct in invoking section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levying penalty on this issue - Decided in favour of assessee. Revision u/s 263 - unexplained payment of advance to vendors - Held that - The present appeal preferred by the assessee is with regard to the assessment order passed in pursuance to the order passed under section 263 of the Act by the ld. CIT. Since the assessee has not able to explain the sources for the advance of Rs. .25 lakhs paid to Shri K.P. Karupusamy and Shri S. Dhanushkodi on 23.01.2001, the Assessing Officer added the said amount to the returned income. After considering the different submissions made by the AR of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) passed a detailed speaking order, which is reproduced hereinabove, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has not able to explain the source of advance for Thiruvanmiyur property, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Even before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has not placed any material evidence for the source of payment of advance to the vendors for Thiruvanmiyur property. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A).- Decided against assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Levy of penalty on addition of rental income.
3. Penalty for unexplained sundry loans.
4. Penalty for unexplained silver articles.
5. Addition of advance payment for Thiruvanmiyur property.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals:
The assessee's appeals were filed late by 54 days for five appeals and by 134 days for one appeal. The assessee submitted affidavits explaining that the delay was neither willful nor deliberate but due to compelling bona fide circumstances, including misplacement of the impugned order. The Tribunal found sufficient cause and condoned the delay, admitting the appeals for hearing.

2. Levy of Penalty on Addition of Rental Income:
The first common ground raised was the levy of penalty on the addition of rental income for the assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05, and 2005-06. The penalty arose from a search action under Section 132 of the Act, revealing undisclosed rental income. The assessee claimed the property was given to her sons through a settlement deed, but no evidence was provided. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had taken contradictory stands and failed to substantiate her claims, leading to the conclusion that there was concealment of rental income. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was confirmed for all the assessment years.

3. Penalty for Unexplained Sundry Loans:
For the assessment year 2002-03, the assessee was penalized for unexplained sundry loans amounting to Rs. 3,41,000/-. The CIT(A) and Tribunal had confirmed the addition. The Tribunal noted that the assessee disclosed the particulars but failed to satisfactorily explain the genuineness of the sundry loans. The penalty proceedings were deemed distinct from assessment proceedings, and mere addition of income was not sufficient to levy penalty. Thus, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty for unexplained sundry loans.

4. Penalty for Unexplained Silver Articles:
For the assessment year 2005-06, the issue pertained to the penalty levied for unexplained silver articles. During a search, the assessee was found in possession of significant silver articles, which she claimed were received as Sreedhanam and gifts. The Tribunal, in the quantum appeal, accepted this claim for 50% of the total value. The remaining 50% was treated as undisclosed investment. The Tribunal found that mere confirmation of addition did not constitute proof of concealment and directed the deletion of the penalty.

5. Addition of Advance Payment for Thiruvanmiyur Property:
For the assessment year 2002-03, the assessee was unable to explain the source of an advance payment of Rs. 25 lakhs for a property in Thiruvanmiyur. The CIT, exercising power under Section 263, directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment, leading to the addition of Rs. 25 lakhs. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, noting inconsistencies in the assessee's explanations and lack of evidence. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the appeal.

Conclusion:
The appeals for the assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, and 2004-05 were dismissed, while the appeals for the assessment years 2002-03 (regarding unexplained sundry loans) and 2005-06 (regarding unexplained silver articles) were partly allowed.

← Previous Next →