2019 (8) TMI 163 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - concealment detected in the course of any proceeding under the Act, which cannot be limited to assessment proceeding and should have been held to include survey proceeding u/s 133A(1) - Whether Appellate Tribunal erred in not appreciating that even clause (a) of explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c) does not refer to returned income so as to limit the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) with reference to difference between tax on Assessed Income and Returned Income? - HELD THAT - We dismiss this Tax Appeal in view of the order dictated today by us in SHREE SAI DEVELOPERS 2019 (8) TMI 59 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT wherein held no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the Tribunal in passing the Impugned order. This Tax Appeal also fails and is hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Year 2013-14.
2. Deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Interpretation of the scope of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment detected during survey proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The High Court of Gujarat dismissed the Tax Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The Tribunal had deleted a penalty of ?2,28,95,820 levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

2. The Revenue raised three substantial questions of law for the Court's consideration. Firstly, whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Secondly, whether the Tribunal erred in not recognizing that the penalty applies to concealment detected in any proceeding under the Act, including survey proceedings under Section 133A(1). Thirdly, whether the Tribunal overlooked that explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c) does not restrict the penalty to the difference between tax on Assessed Income and Returned Income.

3. The Court, in a brief oral order, dismissed the Tax Appeal in light of another order passed in a different case. The judgment did not delve into detailed reasoning but simply stated that the present appeal fails and is consequently dismissed. This decision upholds the Tribunal's deletion of the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and does not provide further elaboration on the interpretation of the penalty provisions in the context of concealment detected during survey proceedings.