TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and material to the computation of his total income, the amount added or disallowed shall be deemed to be his income. The assessee had also claimed deduction of ₹ 1,84,39,383/-. The Assessing Officer allowed only ₹ 68,02,297/-. The Commissioner (Appeals), after verification of some of the documents produced by the assessee, allowed the claim except to the extent of ₹ 34.65 lakhs. This finding also has become final. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid findings against the assessee, this is a case where clause (c) of section 271(1) providing concealment of the particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income is attracted. This clearly is a case to which section 271(1)(c) is attracted and the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), after verification of the documents produced, sustained capital expenses, except to the extent of ₹ 34.65 lakhs. The addition towards short collection at the hospital was upheld. There was no further challenge against the assessment proceedings and accordingly, the order has become final. 4. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, initiated proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and issued notice for the levy of penalty. Finally, penalty of ₹ 16 lakhs as against the minimum leviable penalty of ₹ 15.56 lakhs was levied. In the appeal filed by the assessee, the Appellate Commissioner set aside the order of penalty. This order was challenged by the Revenue before the Income Tax Appellate T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the purpose of section 271(1)(c), be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. Evidently therefore, section 271(1)(c) is attracted in a case where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or has furnished incorrect particulars of such income. Once the Assessing Officer has arrived at such a satisfaction, he is entitled to levy, in addition to the tax payable, by way of penalty, the amount indicated in 271 (1)(iii). In addition to this, as provided in the explanation, if the person concerned is not able to substantiate the explanation and fails to prove the bona fides of the explanation and all facts relating to the same and material to the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res of income could not be furnished as per its return of income. They also contended that on account of the impounding of the books, their accounts could not be audited and that therefore, there was no intentional omission on their part. However, this explanation was rightly rejected by the Assessing Officer pointing out that it was the assessee's duty to get its accounts audited and the time for which had expired long before the survey. The Assessing Officer has further found that if at all there is any truth in the contention of the assessee, they could have applied for copies of extracts of the records impounded which was not done by the assessee. 11. In the aforesaid circumstances, this clearly is a case to which section 271(1)( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere the assessee had made an incorrect claim in the return on the basis of which proceedings under section 271(1)(c) was initiated. It was in that context, the Apex Court said that furnishing of inaccurate particulars of the income of the assessee in the return filed did not attract the provision. This judgment, in our view, cannot have any relevance to the facts of this case. 14. Counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the judgment in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [(2012) 348 ITR 306]. That was a case where the assessee had committed a mistake and has rightly held section 271(1)(c) was wrongly invoked. 15. As we have already stated, this is a case where factually and legally all the ingred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
