TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particulars as neither the assessing authority nor first appellate authority recorded any finding to such effect that details furnished by the assessee to be incorrect, erroneous or false. We are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal had recorded finding of fact that no penalty can be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as Revenue has failed to establish that assessee has concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. - 276 of 2015, 277 of 2015, Income Tax Appeal Defective No. - 197 of 2015, 198 of 2015, 199 of 2015, 200 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 26-8-2019 - Bharati Sapru And Rohit Ranjan Agarwal JJ. For the Appellant : S.S.C. I.T.,Praveen Kumar, Abhinav Mehrotra For the Respondent : Abhinav Mehrotra ORDER (DELIVERED BY HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.) 1. All these six appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'Act') arise out of the common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, Bench B , New Delhi (hereinafter called as 'Tribunal') dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessment order was confirmed in appeal and further on appeal before the Tribunal, the order of the assessing authority was upheld. No further appeal was filed by the assessee challenging the order of the Tribunal as far as the quantum is concerned. 5. While, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated against assessee on the ground of concealment of particulars of income and a sum of ₹ 75,76,441/- was imposed as penalty for assessment year 2000-01, on the ground that assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars and had concealed particulars of its income amounting to ₹ 1,52,20,000/-. Aggrieved by the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c), assessee filed an appeal before CIT (A) III, New Delhi, who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee reducing penalty at 100% instead of 150%. 6. Against the said order, assessee as well as Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal at New Delhi. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of Revenue and allowed the assessee's appeal for assessment year 2000-01 to 2005-06. 7. Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Department sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal in Para Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of its order, analysing and examining in detail the documents submitted by the assessee in respect of the gift before the Assessing Officer in penalty proceedings as well as the statements of both the donors Naresh Jain and Anil Jain being recorded in the said proceedings. 10. It is further submitted that gifts were disbelieved by citing human probability and perception. It has been stated that it would have been different where any tangible, cogent and relevant material was discovered by the Revenue to disapprove the gift, but it is not correct to merely disbelieve it on the basis of subjective perception. It was further contended that except for the addition on the account of alleged fictitious gift, all other additions made by the Revenue to the income of assessee were deleted by the appellate authorities. 11. Replying to the argument of the Revenue on the question of quantum proceedings, it was submitted that they are not sacrosanct and impregnable for proving a charge of concealment of income for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, for causing a determination on the questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he question has to be considered from a different angle. 13. Reliance has been placed on a recent judgment of the Apex Court in case of Reliance Petroproducts [322 ITR 158], in which the Apex Court in regard to the penalty proceedings held as under:- We do not agree, as the assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its Return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the Return or not. Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the revenue then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted by Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under Section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 14. The second argument of the counsel for the assessee is that the finding arrived by the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the amount added to her income would not be deemed to be income in respect of which particulars had been concealed. 17. We have heard Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the Revenue and Sri Abhinav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the assessee. 18. Before proceeding, it would be necessary to have a glance of provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act:- 271. (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person- (a) .................. (b) .................. (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of [such income, or] (d) .................. he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty,- (i) ............ (ii) ............. (iii) ............ Explanation 1. -Where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under this Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dras v. Khoday Eswarsa and Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC) held as under:- No doubt the original assessment proceedings, for computing the tax may be a good item of evidence in the penalty proceedings but the penalty cannot be levied solely on the basis of the reasons given in the original order of assessment. In the case before us we have already pointed out that in the order levying penalty the income-tax Officer has categorically stated that the reasons for adding the disputed amounts in the total income of the assessee have been already discussed in the original order of assessment and that they need not be repeated again. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, we have already pointed out, has made only a guess-work. That clearly shows that except the reasons given in the original assessment order for including the disputed items in the total income, the department had no other material or evidence from which it could be reasonably inferred that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. For all the reasons given above, it follows that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The explanation, having regard to the decisions of this Court, must be preceded by a finding as to how and in what manner he furnished the particulars of his income. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that for the said purpose the Income Tax Officer must arrive at a satisfaction in this behalf. [See CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd., (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del) and Diwan Enterprises v. CIT, (2000) 246 ITR 571(Del) . 71. Concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars are different. Both concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars refer to deliberate act on the part of the assessee. A mere omission or negligence would not constitute a deliberate act of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi. Although it may not be very accurate or apt but suppressio veri would amount to concealment, suggestio falsi would amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 22. As noticed above in the case of Anantharam Veersinghaiah and Company (supra), it has been constant view of the Apex Court that burden of proof in penalty proceedings varies from that in the case of assessment proceedings and any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dentity of creditors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions which were before the Assessing Officer but he had not properly appreciated the same and discarded and doubted the genuineness of gifts on ground of human probabilities, though they were tax payers and the amounts gifted had been disclosed in their tax return for relevant year. 26. Instant case, is not a case of either concealment of income or of furnishing inaccurate particulars as neither the assessing authority nor first appellate authority recorded any finding to such effect that details furnished by the assessee to be incorrect, erroneous or false. 27. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal had recorded finding of fact that no penalty can be imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as Revenue has failed to establish that assessee has concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. 28. These appeals have no merit and are hereby dismissed . The question of law, therefore, is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
