TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 662
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of income, or in absence of furnishing of inaccurate particulars no penalty is leviable in law." 4. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessment was completed on 22.12.2009 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) at an income of Rs.29,73,466 against the returned income of Rs.14,32,300 after making addition of Rs.15,41,166. During the quantum proceedings, the Assessing Officer made various additions on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 54F of the Act, disallowance on 60% of car insurance and depreciation, disallowance of business promotion expenses, disallowance on 'discount' bills and disallowance on generator expenses and depreciation thereon. Subsequently, a notice u/s 271(1)(c) r/w section 274 of the Act was served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer decided the issue of penalty with an observation that the additions made on disallowance basis were upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A), Muzaffarnagar in principle, therefore, concealment penalty was levied on the assessee amounting to Rs.3,25,000. 5. Being aggrieved by the above penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(A), Muzaffarna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est for early fixation was ever filed by the appellant. All these facts show that the appellant has tried to dodge the Revenue authorities in paying proper taxes in spite of knowing the full facts of the case and made wrong promises/claims which were detected at later stage. From the detailed narration of whatever happened in this case during the assessment and appellate proceedings; it is very clear to me that the assessee utterly failed to explain as to why wrong claim of deduction was not withdrawn in ITR filed for A.Y. 2007-08. Further, the due taxes on withdrawn deduction U/S 54F(3) of the Act were not paid. Onus was squarely on the assessee to prove the same which the assessee failed to do so. The above conclusion as available in the assessment order and appellate order, shifted the burden on the assessee to explain as to why penalty for concealment was not attracted. The explanation of section 271(l)(c) creates the legal fiction to the effect that the assessee shall be deemed to have concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and therefore the onus is on the assessee to establish that his failure to return correct income did not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alty of Rs.3,25,OOO/-. Further, the appellant's contention that the Assessing Officer had not recorded satisfaction against addition made in respect of capital gains has no basis as the assessment order is loud and clear on this aspect. Ground Nos. 1,2 & 3 are dismissed." 6. Now, empty handed, the assessee is before this Tribunal with the second appeal on the ground as reproduced hereinabove. We have heard rival arguments of both the parties and carefully perused the record before us. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee Mr. Subodh Gulati expired on 06.05.2007 and quantum and penalty proceedings were carried on after the death of the assessee. Therefore, the legal representative and heirs of the assessee being unaware of the relevant facts and evidence in favour of the assessee could not submit the case properly before the authorities below. The counsel further submitted that legal representative and heirs of the deceased assessee paid all the tax and interest etc. to buy peace of mind without agitating the issues before higher appellate forum. The ld. counsel also submitted that in the absence of a specific charge u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, it was very difficult to assume the charge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment proceedings, the same was deducted for addition and the assessee was also paid taxes thereon. The DR submitted that it was a clear fact that the assessee deliberately tried to conceal the income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the shape of return of income. The DR submitted that even if the assessee has filed revised return and is not able to establish inadvertent mistake or omission in original return, then the penalty is justified. The DR supporting the impugned order also submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) has rightly held that in a case of wrong claim of deduction, the burden is on the assessee to prove that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and if the assessee was showing inaccurate particulars of taxable income, the penalty should be levied. 8. We have carefully considered the above submissions of both the parties and perused the impugned order, penalty order and other relevant citations and entire record placed before us. In the case of Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Full Bench of Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi held that the power to impose penalty u/s 271 of the Act d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... addition related to the proportionate claim u/s 54F of the Act by disallowing an amount of Rs.16,09,905/- on account of land purchase at Delhi Road, Saharanpur for construction of a residential house within the stipulated period. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has sold a part of the said land which was left for the purpose of construction of residential unit and the assessee did not construct a residential house on the said land within the stipulated time. In the assessment order in para 3, the Assessing Officer has not recorded his satisfaction that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars or has concealed particulars of his income related to capital gains. On careful reading of the assessment order, we observe that in para 5 related to discount of bills, in the last sentence, the Assessing Officer has mentioned that "penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) is being issued". At the end of para 6 related to generator expenses, the Assessing Officer has also mentioned that "penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) is being issued at this point also" and at the end of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has mentioned that "penalty notice u....