9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved: Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; Concealment of Income; Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars of Income; Reopening of Assessment under Section 147A; Evidence and Burden of Proof.
Detailed Analysis: 1. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The primary issue is the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 98,860 under Section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) levied this penalty after the assessee offered an amount of Rs. 1,11,565 for taxation to avoid litigation, despite claiming that this amount was paid as a commission to M/s. Bachubhai Jamnadas & Co., which was denied by the recipient during a search operation. 2. Concealment of Income: The assessee argued that there was no concealment of income as the commission was genuinely paid to M/s. Bachubhai Jamnadas & Co. and documented with a stamped receipt and other correspondence. The CIT(A) accepted this argument, noting that the assessee agreed to the addition only to buy peace with the Department, not because the amount represented concealed income. The Tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing the bona fides of the assessee and the lack of evidence from the Department to prove concealment. 3. Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars of Income: The assessee maintained that accurate particulars of income were furnished, and the commission payment was documented and disclosed during the original assessment. The Tribunal noted that the ITO did not investigate further to verify the introduction of clients by M/s. Bachubhai Jamnadas & Co., nor did they examine the landowners involved. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee did not furnish inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Reopening of Assessment under Section 147A: The assessment was reopened based on the statement made by Shri Bachubhai Jamnadas during a search operation, where he denied receiving the commission. The Tribunal found that the reopening was based on this denial without further investigation into the facts presented by the assessee, such as the stamped receipt and other documentary evidence. 5. Evidence and Burden of Proof: The Tribunal emphasized that penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, and the burden of proof lies on the Revenue to establish that the assessee consciously concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal cited several judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT, to highlight that mere admission of an amount for taxation does not automatically imply concealment of income. The Tribunal found that the Department failed to discharge this burden of proof. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the penalty. The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) were not applicable, as the assessee's agreement to the addition was to avoid litigation and not an admission of concealed income. The Tribunal also noted the lack of thorough investigation by the Department and the bona fides of the assessee in maintaining proper documentation and records. Separate Judgment: Both members of the Tribunal, Shri J.P. Bengra and Shri R.N. Singhal, concurred in dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Shri R.N. Singhal highlighted three factual aspects: the brevity of the penalty order, the unresolved contradiction between the stamped acknowledgments and the oral denial, and the Department's failure to trace the ultimate destination of the commission cheques.
|
