2000 (10) TMI 19 - HC - Income Tax

Court rules penalty under Income-tax Act not justified without sufficient evidence

National Textiles Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax

The High Court held that the penalty of Rs. 90,000 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was not ... Penalty, Concealment Of Income, Cash Credits Issues Involved:1. Justifiability of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.2. Applicability of the Gujarat High Court judgment in CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji.3. Evaluation of the assessee's explanation.4. Appreciation of different ratios of Gujarat High Court judgments.5. Basis of Tribunal's findings.6. Adverse inference regarding non-contesting of additions.7. Furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.Summary:1. Justifiability of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c):The Tribunal confirmed the penalty of Rs. 90,000 imposed u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was based on unexplained cash credits of Rs. 90,000. The assessee's explanation was deemed a 'convenient excuse' rather than the truth. The Tribunal relied on the material gathered during assessment proceedings unless rebutted by the assessee.2. Applicability of Gujarat High Court Judgment in CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji:The Tribunal held that the ratio in CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji was not applicable. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had telescoped the two additions in question in the quantum appeal, but the Tribunal distinguished the situation from the present case.3. Evaluation of the Assessee's Explanation:The assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of cash credits amounting to Rs. 90,000, claiming they were temporary loans arranged by an accountant with whom relations had strained. The Tribunal found this explanation unconvincing and unsupported by evidence.4. Appreciation of Different Ratios of Gujarat High Court Judgments:The Tribunal compared the cases of Vinaychand Harilal and Kantilal Manilal, concluding that the latter's principles applied due to the presence of account manipulation, which suggested fraudulent intent.5. Basis of Tribunal's Findings:The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not contest the addition seriously during the quantum appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that the Department needed to prove concealment with cogent evidence, and the assessee's conduct indicated a deliberate attempt to conceal income.6. Adverse Inference Regarding Non-Contesting of Additions:The Tribunal justified drawing an adverse inference due to the assessee's failure to contest the additions effectively in penalty proceedings, referencing Supreme Court decisions in Anwar Ali and Khoday Eswarsa and Sons.7. Furnishing of Inaccurate Particulars of Income:The Tribunal upheld the finding that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income, leading to the concealment of Rs. 90,000. The explanation provided by the assessee was not substantiated, and the Tribunal found no material difference between the original and new Explanation 1 u/s 271(1)(c).Conclusion:The High Court concluded that the same circumstances or state of evidence used to treat cash credits as income could not justify the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without additional evidence. All questions were answered in favor of the assessee, and the reference was answered accordingly.