2002 (2) TMI 1335 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal dismisses revenue's appeal against penalty deletion under Income-tax Act

Income-tax Officer Versus Devibai H. Parmani

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal against the deletion of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 52,589 ... - Issues Involved:1. Deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Examination of the veracity of gifts received by the assessee.3. Applicability of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c).4. Burden of proof and bona fide explanation by the assessee.5. Relevance of judicial precedents in penalty proceedings.Summary:1. Deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The revenue appealed against the deletion of a penalty amounting to Rs. 52,589 imposed u/s 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1988-89. The assessee, a 70-year-old widow and heart patient, received gifts totaling Rs. 1,20,000 from various relatives.2. Examination of the veracity of gifts received by the assessee:The Assessing Officer (AO) issued summons to the donors to verify the gifts. Only one donor, Shri Tejumal H Malani, who gifted cash, was examined. The other donors, who made gifts by cheque, accepted the factum of the gifts via affidavits. The assessee voluntarily offered the gifts for taxation to avoid harassment and litigation.3. Applicability of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c):The CIT(A) examined whether the penalty could be levied under Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c), which deems the amount added or disallowed as concealed income if the explanation is false or unsubstantiated. The term 'false' was interpreted to include both intentional and unintentional falsehoods, but a guilty element is necessary for penal offense.4. Burden of proof and bona fide explanation by the assessee:The initial burden lies on the revenue to establish concealment of income. If the assessee offers an explanation, the AO must record reasons for finding it false before levying a penalty. In this case, the AO did not record any finding that the explanation was false or lacked bona fide. The assessee's voluntary offer to pay tax on the gifts was made in good faith to avoid harassment.5. Relevance of judicial precedents in penalty proceedings:The Tribunal referred to the decisions in CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal and K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT. The former held that voluntary surrender to buy peace does not imply concealment, while the latter emphasized the applicability of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal found no conflict between these decisions, as they addressed different contexts. The assessee's case aligned with Suresh Chandra Mittal, where the explanation was bona fide, and the revenue failed to prove concealment.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the conditions for invoking Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) were not met, and the assessee's case did not fall within the scope of K.P. Madhusudhanan. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed.