Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (5) TMI 98

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cle-2, Coimbatore for the assessment years 2014-15 & 2015-16 u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the 'Act') vide orders dated 19.12.2016 & 27.10.2017 respectively. The impugned penalties u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were levied by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore for the assessment years 2014-15 & 2015-16 vide orders dated 16.02.2022 & 15.02.2022 respectively. 2. The only common issue in these two appeals of assessee is as regards to the orders of the CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in levying penalties u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2014-15 at Rs. 7,59,677/- and for assessment year 2015-16 at Rs. 7,11,900/- for concealment of particulars of income. For this, assess .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... npati Chettiar Sundaram vide statement dated 18.12.2018 voluntarily offered to declare a sum of Rs. 22,35,000/- as additional income on account of bought note purchases being inflated purchases or bogus purchases not supported by vouchers. The assessment was completed u/s. 143 r.w.s. 147 of the Act after arriving at a net loss of Rs. 1,22,08,160/-. As the assessee voluntarily included this sum of Rs. 22,35,000/- as additional income, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing particulars of income was initiated. 4. The AO during the penalty proceedings issued show-cause notice as to why the order imposing penalty should not be made u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee vide letter dated 25.06.2021 submitted that the assessment was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied by invoking Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act on 'amount of tax on income sought to be evaded'. He noted that the assessee has nowhere disputed the bogus purchases and unearthed all bogus purchases during survey u/s. 133A of the Act. According to him, income admitted by assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act for the year under consideration cannot be treated as voluntary and if assessee wanted to voluntarily disclose income, it would have disclosed the income on account of bogus purchases to tax in the original return itself. Therefore, the CIT(A) relying on various case laws recorded her finding in para 7.21 & 7.22 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... holds good only when there is difference between income assessed and income returned. Therefore, following as per Explanation (4)(b), ÁO has arrived at 'Amount of Tax sought to be evaded' by calculating tax on unaccounted purchases amount Rs. 22,35,000/-, which I consider is in order. Explanation (4)(b) nowhere refers to returned income and assessed income as claimed by appellant. I am of the considered view that the AO has rightly levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Rs 7,59,677/-. Consequently, Grounds of appeal of appellant are dismissed." Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in stock register amounting to Rs. 22,35,000/-. Admittedly, these purchases were bogus purchases and were declared in return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, consequent to survey u/s. 133A of the Act, carried out in the business premises of the assessee on 18.01.2018. Admittedly, the assessee's original return of income was filed on 15.09.2014 in which no income on account of inflated purchases was disclosed. Can such amount be treated as concealment of income? The ld.counsel for the assessee before us relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal reported in 251 ITR 9, wherein exactly on identical facts, as in the given facts of the case, where assessee filed original return of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates