2010 (2) TMI 738 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal confirms 100% penalty for tax evasion in appeal cases for 2000-01 and 2001-02.

Prithvi Pal Bindra Versus ACIT

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the penalty at the rate of 100 percent of the tax sought to be evaded for both assessment years ... Penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) - Search and seizure - Assessing Officer has rightly pointed out that filing of revised computation of income is not equivalent to filing of revised return of income and also that once return was filed in response to notice under section 153A, the same cannot be revised as provisions of section 153A does not permit filing of any revised return - it is observed that it is a case where the assessee has offered an explanation which he is not able to substantiate and he also fails to prove that explanation furnished by him is bona fide and all facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income were disclosed - it is the case of the assessee that due to non-availability of legible copy of seized documents, the assessee could not disclose the relevant interest income in the return filed in response to section 153A - it is clear that in the returns of income filed for the assessment years under consideration in response to notice under section 153A, such income has not been disclosed and the reason for such non-disclosure is stated to be non-availability of copy of legible seized documents - When interest income itself is not disclosed, there is no question of holding that all the facts relating to the interest income and material to the computation of income was disclosed by the assessee. Thus, the assessee in the present case has failed to discharge obligations laid upon him by Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c). - Decided against the assessee Issues Involved:1. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income.2. Legibility and availability of seized documents.3. Voluntariness of filing revised computation of income.4. Applicability of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c).Detailed Analysis:1. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Concealment of Income:The appeals were filed by the assessee against the orders of the CIT(A), which confirmed the penalty under section 271(1)(c) at the rate of 100 percent of the concealed income, reduced from 300 percent as imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO's case was based on the fact that the assessee did not disclose interest income accrued and received from a deposit with M/s. Ambience Leasing Ltd. in the returns filed in response to notice under section 153A. The CIT(A) agreed with the AO, stating that non-disclosure in the return filed under section 153A amounted to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.2. Legibility and Availability of Seized Documents:The assessee contended that the non-disclosure of interest income was due to the non-availability of legible copies of seized documents. The AO and the CIT(A) both rejected this contention, noting that the copies of the seized material were available and that the interest income disclosure did not depend on these documents. The CIT(A) observed that the interest income from M/s. Ambience Leasing Ltd. was known to the assessee and should have been included in the returns filed under section 153A.3. Voluntariness of Filing Revised Computation of Income:The assessee claimed that the revised computation of income, which included the omitted interest income, was filed voluntarily before any inquiries or questionnaires were issued by the AO. However, the AO and the CIT(A) found that the revised computation was filed in response to queries raised during the assessment proceedings, and thus, it was not a voluntary act. The CIT(A) noted that the filing of a revised computation of income does not equate to filing a revised return, especially since section 153A does not permit the filing of a revised return.4. Applicability of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c):The Tribunal examined the applicability of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c), which deems income to be concealed if the assessee fails to offer a substantiated and bona fide explanation for the omission. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation regarding the non-availability of legible copies of seized documents was not substantiated and was not bona fide. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had previously disclosed similar interest income in earlier years and should have done so for the years under consideration. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to discharge the obligations under Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c), thereby justifying the levy of concealment penalty.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the penalty at the rate of 100 percent of the tax sought to be evaded for both assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02, dismissing the appeals filed by the assessee. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's arguments and concluded that the concealment penalty was rightly levied.