9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in ITA No.1391/AHD/1995 and ITA No.1392/AHD/1995 for the A.Y.-1986-87, whereby, the Tribunal partly allowed both the appeals filed by the appellant assessee, though, only for statistical purposes. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the appellant-assessee is engaged in the business of boring of tubewells for farmers. The appellant-assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 1986-87. Pursuant thereto, the case of the appellant-assessee was examined and the AO imposed penalty of Rs. 1,51,800/- under Section 271(1)(c) and Rs. 12,566/- under Section 273(2)(a) of the Act, on the ground that assessee had failed to disclose its income truly and correctly. Being aggrieved with the same, the appellant-as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20 and 21 thereof, which read as under; "19. In the quantum proceedings, the explanation of the assessee in relation to cash credits was not accepted and found to be false. The accountant was not produced and the explanation that relations with him are strained was also found to be an unjustifiable excuse. In the assessment, it was also taken into consideration that the assessee had tried to square up the credit entries to conceal the particulars of income. Only 2 credit entries were explained and regarding the remaining entries, there were no documents or evidence brought on record. The names of parties from whom the temporary loans were obtained were not furnished. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 976. The previous Explanation used the expression "deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnish inaccurate particulars of such income for the purpose of clause (c) of this sub-section". While the present Explanation 1 reads : "Such income shall be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed." In effect, this makes explicit what was implicit in the previous Explanation- CIT v. Rupbani Theaters (P.) Ltd [1981] 130 ITR 747 (Cal.). 21. The provisions of section 68 permitting the Assessing Officer to treat unexplained cash credit as in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, the revenue rejected the books of accounts of the assessee, therein, on the ground that the same was defective, however, made certain addition to the income of the assessee relying on the same documents. This Court, therefore, held that once having rejected the books of accounts of the assessee as being defective, it was not open to the revenue to rely upon the same set of documents to make addition to taxable income of the assessee. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Sudhir Mehta, learned Advocate for the respondent-Revenue, strongly supported the orders by the CIT(A) as well as the ITAT and submitted that there being failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all the facts truly and correctly at the time of assessment, the CIT(A) as well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncealment of income or (2) conscious attempt to provide the particulars of income which is untrue. Meaning thereby, the AO cannot impose penalty in case of an assessee mechanically, merely on the ground of addition of certain amount, over and above the amount already declared by the assessee, and that he has to record reasons specifying that there was either concealment of income or supplying of untrue particulars of taxable income for the relevant year. 13. Here, before adverting to the facts of the present case, it would be relevant to refer to an order of the Tribunal, Dated : 30.01.2001, passed in case of the appellant-assessee being ITA No. 3010/Ahd/93 for the A.Y.-1986-87. In that case, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 92,33 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alse or the assessee was not able to substantiate the same by producing convincing evidence in support, thereof. Having gone through the record, we find that it is neither the case of the respondent-revenue nor is there any material to show that there was any willful concealment or furnishing of inaccurate or incorrect details of income by the appellantassessee. In other words, there being no conscious concealment of income, the AO could not have imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. So far as the penalty under Section 273(2)(a) is concerned, said section reads as under; "273(2)[a] has furnished under subsection( 1) or sub-section(2) or subsection( 3) or sub-se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
