2016 (2) TMI 272 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty notice u/sec. 271(1)(c) - Held that - Non initiation of proceedings u/sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act or non imposition of penalty u/sec. 271(1)(c) for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as they are independent and separate proceedings. The AO had also found as a finding of fact that it was established on record that the assessee has shown a bogus liability in the books of account and even the AO was able to go into further detail that even bearer cheques were issued which were self cheques and the amount was withdrawn by the assessee himself and even subsequent amounts were debited to the account of the creditor on several different dates showing payment to have been made by cash to the said creditor - Dee Jay Steels, New Delhi, all amounts below ₹ 20,000/-. All such findings of fact noticed by all the three authorities being essentially finding of fact, in our view the impugned order of the Tribunal is well reasoned and is not required to be interfered with as no perversity is noticed. We find no substantial question of law involved in the instant appeal.

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeal under sec. 260A
2. Addition u/sec. 41(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
3. Imposition of penalty u/sec. 271(1)(c) for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income
4. Substantial questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order

Issue 1: Delay in filing appeal under sec. 260A
The appeal under sec. 260A was directed against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in M.A. No.1/JP/2013 in ITA No.1069/JP/2010 related to the assessment year 2007-08. The application u/sec. 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed, and the delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

Issue 2: Addition u/sec. 41(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The appellant-assessee declared income of &8377; 2,15,330/- but showed sundry creditors of &8377; 4,76,537/- in the name of Dee Jay Steels, New Delhi. Upon further inquiry, it was revealed that the account was squared up in the relevant financial year, with payments made through bearer cheques and cash below &8377; 20,000/-. The AO made an addition u/sec. 41(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The Tribunal's order was considered well-reasoned, with no substantial question of law identified.

Issue 3: Imposition of penalty u/sec. 271(1)(c) for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income
The appellant contended that the surrender of the amount was made to avoid further litigation and have mental peace, with the understanding that penalty proceedings would not be initiated. However, the AO issued a notice u/sec. 271(1)(c) and imposed a penalty, contrary to the appellant's understanding. The Court held that the AO's assurance not to initiate penalty proceedings did not preclude the imposition of penalties, as they are separate proceedings. The findings of the AO regarding the bogus liability and self-cheques were upheld by all authorities, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Issue 4: Substantial questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order
The appellant argued that substantial questions of law arose from the Tribunal's order, alleging that the order was perverse. However, the Court found no substantial question of law in the appeal, as the Tribunal's decision was well-reasoned and based on factual findings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for being devoid of merit.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment covers the issues related to the delay in filing appeal, addition under sec. 41(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, imposition of penalty for concealment of income, and the existence of substantial questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order.

← Previous Next →