Tribunal upholds penalty for non-disclosure of income

The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for non-disclosure of additional income by the appellant. Despite the appellant's argument of unintentional errors rectified during assessment proceedings, the Tribunal deemed the non-disclosure as not bona fide, as the income was declared only after scrutiny and specific queries from the Assessing Officer. Emphasizing the importance of bona fide claims and penalties to deter tax evasion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the penalty, citing a Delhi High Court decision.

---

---

Issues:
Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for non-disclosure of additional income.

Analysis:
The appellant contested the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer for not disclosing additional income. During assessment proceedings, it was found that the authorized capital of the assessee had increased significantly, and expenses were debited for interest on loans borrowed. The assessee submitted that the filing fee on increased authorized share capital and interest on loans were inadvertently omitted from the income statement. The Assessing Officer considered the belated declaration of additional income as an attempt to evade penalties. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty. The appellant argued that the mistakes were rectified voluntarily during assessment proceedings, citing reliance on various legal decisions.

The appellant's representative emphasized that the errors were unintentional and rectified promptly during scrutiny proceedings. The appellant's directors were not well-versed in tax laws and relied on their counsel for return preparation. The appellant voluntarily rectified the mistakes by revising the income statement. The Ld. AR referred to legal precedents to support the appellant's case.

The Tribunal considered the explanations provided by both parties. It noted that the appellant's non-disclosure of income was not bona fide, as the additional income was declared only after scrutiny and specific queries from the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found that the appellant's reliance on its Chartered Accountant did not absolve it of the non-disclosure. Citing a Delhi High Court decision, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of bona fide claims and penalties to deter tax evasion. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c).

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal, affirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for non-disclosure of additional income. The Tribunal found the explanations provided by the appellant insufficient to support a claim of bona fide mistake, considering the timing of the income declaration and the reliance on professional advice during return filing.

---