Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 730 - HC - Income TaxPenalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - non-disclosure of the capital gains, in the required column in the income tax report, for the relevant financial year - non disclosure of sale the lands and windmill - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the assessee did not disclose about the sale of the lands and windmill in the return of income - as clear from the perusal of the return of income and in the relevant column, it is stated as ‘Nil’. The assessee relies upon the annual report and substantial portion of the report was read to us by the learned counsel to impress upon us that the assessee’s non-disclosure was bonafide and an inadvertent mistake. Annual report is not a report, which is filed under the Income Tax Act - it is admitted that this annual report was never filed with the Income Tax Department. That apart, the Chartered Accountant has reported the captial gains as Nil and this has been signed by the Managing Director of the Company. If such is the factual position, it will not only be a case of filing inaccurate particulars, but also a case of concealment of income. The information came to the Department through the AIR, which was forwarded by the Registration Department and after verifying the same, when notice was issued under Section 143(2), the assessee, for the first time statef that due to inadvertence, they did not disclose the particulars relating to the capital gains. The above facts will clearly show that the assessee did not act bonafidely and the belated explanation sought to be offered deserves to be rejected. One more attempt made by the assessee was 24 months after the assessment were completed by attempting to file a revised statement of income on 01.03.2017. This statement can never improve the case of the assessee nor exonerate them from penalty. Another contention advanced by M/s.S.Yogalakshmi is that the AO had not recorded his satisfaction that penalty proceedings have to be initiated, by relying to the decision in the case of D.M.Manasvi to support the argument that the enire circumstances should have been considered, more particularly, the financial distress to which the assessee was thrown. As carefully perused the penalty order dated 25.09.2015 and we find that the Assessing Officer considered all the factual aspects raised by the assessee and rejected the same to be absolutely without bonafides. As decided in MAK DATA P. LTD. [2013 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT] voluntary disclosure does not release the assesee from mischief of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, we find that the penalty order is a reasoned order. Order passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference and the Substantial Questions of law framed for consideration have to be answered against the assessee.
|