Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 175 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act - Profit earned from undisclosed business - Held that:- The decision in Jyoti Laxman Konkar vs. CIT [2006 (7) TMI 165 - BOMBAY High Court] and CIT vs. Rakesh Suri [2010 (5) TMI 576 - Allahabad High Court] followed - 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 - The assessee admittedly accepted the order of the AO in maintaining the addition because no appeal was preferred before any authority against the addition - The assessee had admitted that he has earned unaccounted income from undisclosed business - in the penalty proceedings, finding of fact recorded by the AO which have reached finality cannot be disturbed. The AO in the quantum order has specifically mentioned that he was satisfied that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income - The AO also held that Explanation 1(A) of section 271(1)(c) is also squarely applicable in the case of assessee and in fact the explanation offered by the assessee was found to be false - The ld. CIT(A) also found that the assessee has not filed any satisfactory explanation before him - Therefore, the AO is correct in holding that the assessee has willfully concealed the particulars of his income by not disclosing the fact of maintaining bank account with ICICI Bank - 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 - The assessee was maintaining unaccounted bank account and made huge cash deposits in the bank account and when the details were called for from the bank, the assessee had to make surrender of such income – Decided against Assessee. Quantum of penalty – Held that:- It may not be a case of levy of maximum penalty or at least 200% penalty - The interest of justice requires that minimum penalty at the rate of 100% may be levied – thus, the quantum of penalty is modified and the AO is directed to levy minimum penalty at the rate of 100% - Decided partly in favour of Assessee.
|