TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1052X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,54,387/- were not declared and some part was declared in the security account by the assessee but were not declared as part of the receipts from PWD, Sirhind. When information was called from the PWD, Sirhind, the Assessing Officer found the assessee to have suppressed its contract receipts on which tax was also deducted at source by the said concern. The case of the assessee, however was that it had not received the said TDS certificates from the said department and, hence the confusion and under-declaration of the receipts by the assessee. We find no merit in the stand of the assessee in this regard and it is a fit case of levy of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income - ITA No. 1357/Chd/2012, ITA No. 6/Chd/2013 - - - Dated:- 25-9-2013 - SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri Akhilesh Gupta For the Respondent : Shri I.S.Khurana ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. The revenue and the assessee have filed cross-appeals against the order of the CIT(Appeals)-II, Ludhiana dated 31.10.2012 relating to assessment year 2006-07 against the order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the security account while for the balance amount, profit @ 5.36% was offered for taxation. The Assessing Officer referred the case of the assessee for special audit under section 142(2A) of the Act and thereafter, addition of ₹ 21,54,387/- on account of suppression of receipts from PWD, Sirhind was made. Another addition was made by the Assessing Officer by rejecting the books of account and estimation the income of the assessee @ 12% on total turnover of ₹ 9,59,16,586/-. The addition made on account of suppression of receipts was telescoped with the total addition made while estimating the net profit @ 12%. Thereafter, penalty proceedings were completed and penalty of ₹ 17,32,335/- was levied on the basis of total assessed income. 7. The CIT(Appeals) was of the view that the conduct of the assessee wherein various discrepancies were owned up by the assessee reflects preponderance of evidence pointing towards contumacious conduct of concealment on the part of the assessee. The CIT(Appeals) also noted that though the assessee raised separate grounds of appeal with regard to the addition of ₹ 21,54,387/-, the same was not addressed before the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here the assessee had concealed the particulars of its income or in the alternative, the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Either of the two conditions needs to be fulfilled before levy of penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act. The provisions of the Act envisages an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the assessee to prove its bonafides and where the assessee is able to prove the bonafides of his claim, with regard to the particulars of income furnished in the return of income, in such circumstances no penalty is leviable for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act. The expressions concealment and inaccurate particulars u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act has been deliberated upon in plethora of judgments by various Courts. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CIT, Ahemdabad Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd (supra) while referring in the word particulars in inaccurate particulars of income , observed, as per Law Lexicon, the meaning of word 'particular' is a detail or details, the details of a claim, or the separate items of an account. Therefore, the word particulars used in Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssible view could not be treated as concealment of its income by the assessee or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income so as to attract the penal provisions of section 271 (l)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 17. The Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Sidhartha Enterprises [(2010) 228 CTR (P H) 579 ] held that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharmendra Textile (supra) cannot be read as laying down that every case -where particulars of income are inaccurate, penalty must follow. What has been laid down is that qualitative difference between criminal liability under section 276C and penalty under s. 271(l)(c) had to be kept in mind and approach adopted to the trial of a criminal case need not be adopted while considering the levy of penalty. Even so, concept of penalty has not undergone change by virtue of the said judgment. Penalty is imposed only when there is some element of deliberate default and not a mere mistake. This being the position, the finding having been recorded on facts that the furnishing of inaccurate particulars was simply a mistake and not a deliberate attempt to evade tax, the view taken by the Tribunal cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
