Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 491 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Income from commission received from various shoe traders and interest on loans – Held that:- Following the decision in Vijay Kumar Gupta vs. ITO [2014 (3) TMI 175 - ITAT AGRA] - it is clear case of concealment of income because the assessee has concealed the bank account maintained with ICICI Bank Ltd. from the Revenue department - It is the net profit rate which has to be adopted in such cases - As regards the legal proposition that sales cannot be regarded as profit of the assessee and net profit rate has to be applied, there is no quarrel with the same, but the same proposition would not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case - The assessee admittedly accepted the order of the AO in maintaining the addition because no appeal was preferred before any authority against the said addition - The assessee, therefore, admitted that he has earned unaccounted income from undisclosed business - Therefore, in the penalty proceedings, finding of fact recorded by the AO which have reached finality cannot be disturbed. The AO issued several statutory notices calling for the explanation of the assessee, but no reply was filed - the AO was already having information with him through AIR information and the details called for u/s. 133(6) of the IT Act that the assessee has maintained two unaccounted bank accounts with ING Vaishya Bank Ltd. The assessee did not explain source of entries in the same bank accounts and statutory notices remained un-complied and it is only on 17.09.2009 just prior to completion of assessment, the assessee’s counsel replied that earlier no compliance could be made on account of slackness of the counsel to whom notice was handed over and the details of bank account could not be obtained - The assessee in the same reply surrendered as additional income on account of peak credit in these bank accounts - The assessee also filed revised income computation chart and requested the AO that the return filed originally may be treated as revised accordingly - The course of action adopted by the assessee is not permissible under law - There is no provision under law to file revised income computation chart without actual filing of revised return of income within the period of limitation in accordance with law - the AO has correctly levied penalty against the assessee - Since no explanation, whatsoever, was filed at the assessment stage as well as at the penalty stage, therefore, levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is wholly justified – The concept of "reasonable cause" or exception as contended by the assessee has no applicability to the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act - Decided against assessee.
|