2012 (7) TMI 234 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal confirms penalty for income concealment under tax law

M/s. Amzel Limited Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income tax

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal, confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. The ... Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - assessee had not complied with the provisions of section 50C as per which the capital gain was required to be computed on the basis of stamp duty valuation - Held that:- As the assessee was required to compute capital gain under the clear provisions of section 50C, assessee however declared much lower capital gain on the basis of consideration received which was against the clear provisions of law - explanation of the assessee that lower declaration was by mistake cannot be considered as bonafide because the assessee did not file revised computation even during assessment proceedings when the issue was being examined and assessee filed revised computation only after the addition was made in the assessment order - explanation cannot be considered as bonafide nor the issue is debatable as the assessee did not dispute the valuation report thus Penalty has being rightly levied - decided against assessee. Issues:Levy of penalty for concealment of income under section 271(1)(c).Detailed Analysis:The appellant's appeal was against the order of the CIT(A) regarding the penalty for concealment of income under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07. The appellant had sold an immovable property during the year, and the capital gain was computed based on consideration received, not complying with section 50C provisions. The appellant revised the computation after assessment proceedings, leading to penalty proceedings initiated by the AO. The AO and CIT(A) concluded that the appellant concealed income intentionally, leading to the penalty imposition. The appellant argued that there was no intentional concealment, only a mistake in not declaring income under section 50C. The Tribunal analyzed the facts and contentions presented by both parties.The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to compute capital gain based on stamp duty value as required by section 50C, even after being informed by the AO during assessment proceedings. The appellant revised the computation only after the concealment was detected and the addition was made in the assessment order. The Tribunal highlighted that willful concealment is not necessary for penalty under section 271(1)(c) as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Dharmendra Textile Processors case. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's explanation of lower declaration of capital gain as a mistake was not bonafide, as the appellant did not dispute the valuation or file revised computation timely.The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that penalty proceedings were not properly initiated, as the penalty notice clearly mentioned the initiation under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal distinguished the appellant's reliance on certain Tribunal decisions, emphasizing that the explanation provided by the appellant was not found bonafide. The Tribunal upheld the penalty levy under Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) due to the appellant's failure to comply with section 50C provisions and the delayed revised computation submission.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal, stating that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was rightly levied due to the appellant's failure to declare income as per section 50C provisions and the lack of bonafide explanation for the discrepancies in capital gain computation.