Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 1007 - AT - Income TaxLevy of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - concealment/furnished inaccurate particular of income - HELD THAT - As income declared by the assessee is based on entry in books of accounts/other documents pertaining to any previous year which commenced before the date of search and return of income has been filed before search but such income was not declared then, even if the assessee declared such income in the return of income filed after search, he will be deemed to have concealment/furnished inaccurate particular of income. It has to be noted that not only the appellant had not disclosed this income in his original return of income but even in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, he had given evasive reply regarding the actual investment made in the hotel project. Therefore, at no stretch of imagination, the disclosure could be termed as voluntary. It is also to be noted that before us, she had only made a plea that the Ld. CIT(A) has already deleted the quantum addition and no penalty could be levied. However, she has not put any argument with regard to the above finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Since she has not made any argument on the above issue, and also lower authorities have not considered any deleted additions for levy of penalty, there is no merit in the argument of assessee s counsel that no penalty could be levied when addition is deleted where there is no levy of penalty on this deleted amount. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that sustaining penalty by Ld. CIT(A) is justified and reject all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal. Assessee argued that A.O. issued the show cause notice for levy of penalty on 24.10.2019, which was posted for hearing on 8.11.2019 and levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on 24.10.2019, which is opposed to law and against the natural justice - However, no evidence has been placed before us or any argument was made before us. Accordingly, this ground is rejected. AO ignored the fact that once the revised return filed u/s 153C of the Act, the original return u/s 139 of the Act abates and becomes non-est - We find that in view of judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT these ground of appeal have no merit. Assessee appeal dismissed.
Issues:
Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act,1961. Analysis: The appeal was against the order confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee had filed the original return of income for the assessment year 2016-17, disclosing total income. Subsequently, during a search operation, certain documents were seized, and statements were recorded. The Assessing Officer disallowed a claim of expenditure, leading to the initiation of penalty proceedings. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition, considering the disclosure and deductions made by the assessee. The Tribunal also referred to a similar case where the penalty was canceled after the corresponding additions were deleted. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer cannot levy a penalty that has already been deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had confirmed the penalty to the extent levied by the Assessing Officer, citing a Supreme Court judgment. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, stating that the disclosure was not voluntary and that the concealment of income was evident. The Tribunal rejected the arguments regarding the timing of the penalty imposition and the abatement of the original return after filing a revised return. Ultimately, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed, and the penalty was upheld. This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the judgment, including the background, key arguments, legal interpretations, and the final decision reached by the Tribunal.
|