Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2014 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 944 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURTPenalty under section 271(1)(c) - Whether penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are distinct from the quantum proceedings under section 143(3), thus requiring independent examination and appreciation of material facts containing material particulars on the merits thereof ? - whether additional evidences thereof for case adjudication is necessarily to be examined ? - Held that:- In the revised return filed on December 2, 2008, the surrendered amount of ₹ 2.5 crores was shown therein when the assessee was cornered during the assessment proceedings. Even during the penalty proceedings before the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), there was nothing to show that the jewellery found at the premises of the assessee on October 27, 2006, was accounted money with the assessee. No satisfactory explanation had been furnished to demonstrate why the material sought to be produced now could not be produced earlier. Thus, in our opinion, in view of the above, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application for additional evidence filed by the assessee. Combined reading of section 132(4) and Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) would clearly show that immunity is available if the income is surrendered during search and the manner of earning such income is also disclosed and the assessee based on such dis closure paid tax on the same. In the case before us, after having made surrender, the assessee simply retracted from the statement and did not include the amount of surrender in the return of income. The income was included through revised return which has to be accepted by the Assessing officer because same was late. In any case the revised return was furnished only when the assessee was fully cornered during the assessment proceedings. In addition some more items of income were also found to be concealed particularly in respect of platinum and silver jewellery. Therefore, it is a clear case of concealment and penalty has been rightly levied and confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - Decided against assessee.
|