2017 (12) TMI 815 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition u/s 68 - Held that - This Court is of the opinion that given the finality to the quantum proceedings which fixed the liability upon the income of ₹ 1,34,584/- and the nature of the addition, the imposition of penalty in the circumstances could not be faulted. The citing of past instance or the lack of absence of cross-examination in no way, in the opinion of the Court, vitiates the initiation and culmination of penalty proceedings. No substantial question of law arises.

Summary

Issues: Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 characterizing the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) as perverse, addition of &8377; 1,34,584/- under Section 68 of the Act based on cash credits, imposition of penalty under Section 271 of the Act, lack of cross-examination of the creditor, past instances of greater amounts advanced by the same creditor.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upholding the addition of &8377; 1,34,584/- under Section 68 of the Act based on cash credits for the assessment year 2007-08. The Assessing Officer (AO) had summoned and recorded the statement of the creditor, who admitted accommodating the assessee in exchange for cash, leading to the conclusion that the transaction was not genuine. The Appellate Commissioner and ITAT affirmed the AO's findings in the regular quantum appeals, and a penalty of &8377; 45,301/- was imposed under Section 271 of the Act, which was also upheld through subsequent appeals.

2. The appellant's counsel contended that the assessee was not given the opportunity for cross-examination, and highlighted instances where the same creditor had advanced greater amounts without objection from the AO in the past. However, the lack of cross-examination and past instances were not considered sufficient to invalidate the penalty proceedings as the liability had been established during the quantum proceedings. The court found no fault in the imposition of the penalty under the circumstances and dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose from the case.

3. The High Court, in its judgment, emphasized that the finality of the quantum proceedings, which determined the liability of &8377; 1,34,584/-, and the nature of the addition supported the imposition of the penalty. The court held that the lack of cross-examination and references to past instances did not undermine the validity of the penalty proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the ITAT and the Appellate Commissioner regarding the addition and penalty imposed under the Income Tax Act, 1961.