2020 (8) TMI 124 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - unaccounted purchases - Validity of notice u/s 274 - Non-specification of charge - AO is not ascertained that for which finding the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated . - HELD THAT - It is not a case claim of deduction by the assessee which was not allowed by the AO but it is a case of concealment of certain transactions thereby the assessee has suppressed the purchases recorded in the books of accounts. This fact was detected by the AO when he has examined the details given in form 26AS. The decision relied upon by the assessee that mere disallowance or addition made by the AO would not amount to concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are not applicable. Those decisions are applicable when the assessee made a claim of deduction which is a bonafide claim but the same was disallowance by the AO as the claim is not allowable as per provisions of the Act. Thus the decisions relied by the assessee including judgment in case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT are not applicable in the facts of the present case. Therefore, the assessee has no case on the merits of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Satisfaction recorded in the assessment order does not require any specific charge but the statement of the AO that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are separately initiated is sufficient. Therefore, the satisfaction recorded by the AO in the assessment order shall have no legal implementation as regard the charge for which the penalty is initiated and finally levied. The notice issued by the AO U/s 274 of the Act though states that the penalty proceedings U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particulars of income. Even if the AO was not certain about the charge at the time of initiation of the penalty proceedings but he has given a definite conclusive finding regarding the default or charge at the time of passing the penalty order then no default cannot be found in the penalty order. When the AO has given a certain and definite finding at the time of passing the penalty order then there is no illegality in the penalty order passed U/s 271(1)(c) - Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Validity of initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.
3. Merits of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appeal was filed with an 8-day delay. The assessee explained the delay was due to the festival season and subsequent holidays. The Tribunal considered the reasons provided and, in the interest of justice, condoned the delay to decide the appeal on merits rather than technicalities.

2. Validity of Initiation of Penalty Proceedings:
The assessee contended that the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) were invalid as the Assessing Officer (AO) did not specify whether the penalty was for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income. The Tribunal referred to various judgments, including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd., and the Third Member decision of the Amritsar Bench in HPCL Mittal Energy Ltd. vs. ACIT. It was noted that the AO must specify the charge at the time of issuing the penalty notice and at the time of passing the penalty order. However, if the AO provides a definite finding at the time of passing the penalty order, the initiation of penalty proceedings cannot be held as invalid. In this case, the AO concluded that the assessee intentionally concealed income, thereby satisfying the requirement for a definite finding.

3. Merits of the Penalty Imposed:
The AO noted discrepancies in the purchases recorded by the assessee, as shown in Form 26AS, leading to an addition of ?6,05,536 as unexplained purchases. The assessee did not dispute these findings during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal observed that this was not a case of a mere disallowance of a deduction but a clear case of concealment of transactions. The Tribunal distinguished this case from those where disallowance or addition does not amount to concealment, such as the judgment in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had no case on the merits of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. The order was pronounced in the open court on 21/07/2020.