2009 (11) TMI 461 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty- Concealment of income - This appeal by the Revenue is filed being aggrieved by the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, for the assessment year 2000-01 dated September 6, 2006, wherein the appeal filed by the Revenue has been dismissed confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated December 16, 2004, wherein the order imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been cancelled by the appellate authority by allowing the appeal. Held that- the Tribunal had confirmed the finding of fact arrived at by the appellate authority and there was concurrent finding by the Tribunal that the appellate authority accepting the cause shown by the assessee under section 271(1)(c) for deleting the order of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c). the order of cancellation was valid.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal confirming cancellation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) by appellate authority.
2. Discrepancy in cost of construction of a commercial building leading to penalty imposition.
3. Admissibility of explanation offered by the assessee in penalty proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal confirming the cancellation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) by the appellate authority. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, leading to the current appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The substantial questions of law considered were related to the applicability of the definition of 'concealed particulars of income' or 'inaccurate particulars of such income' under section 271(1)(c) to the case at hand.

2. The case revolved around a discrepancy in the cost of construction of a commercial building, specifically the first floor, which was sold to a bank. The assessee initially failed to provide cogent evidence regarding the cost of construction, leading to a valuation by the Departmental Valuation Officer. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated due to the difference between the declared cost and the valuation amount. The appellate authority accepted the explanation offered by the assessee, leading to the cancellation of the penalty.

3. The crux of the matter was the admissibility of the explanation provided by the assessee during the penalty proceedings. The Revenue contended that the concealment was admitted only after a survey, justifying the penalty imposition. However, both the appellate authority and the Tribunal accepted the explanation given by the assessee, considering the valuation discrepancy and the tax paid on the difference amount. The concurrent finding by the appellate authority and the Tribunal supported the deletion of the penalty under section 271(1)(c), leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decision to cancel the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) based on the explanation provided by the assessee and the valuation accepted by the Departmental Valuation Officer. The court found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the appellate authority and the Tribunal, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee and dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue.