2014 (2) TMI 509 - AT - Income Tax

Tax Tribunal upholds deletion of penalty for unexplained cash credits under IT Act

ITO Ward-12(1) Versus Shri Prakash K. Patel Prop. of Prakash Plastics

ITO Ward-12(1) Versus Shri Prakash K. Patel Prop. of Prakash Plastics - TMI Issues:Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for unexplained cash credits.Analysis:The appeal by the Revenue challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the penalty of Rs.2,46,285 levied under section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year 2004-05. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty without properly appreciating the facts and material brought on record by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue argued that the assessee failed to substantiate explanations for entries in the books of accounts, leading to the penalty. The Revenue cited judicial decisions where penalties were upheld for unsubstantiated additions to the returned income. Additionally, the Revenue referred to a Supreme Court decision stating that willful concealment is not necessary for the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c).The penalty was based on additions made by the Assessing Officer, including differences in accounts and non-genuine gifts. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal. The Senior Departmental Representative supported the AO's order, while the assessee's counsel argued against the penalty. The counsel presented evidence regarding the gifts received, emphasizing the establishment of identity and genuineness despite the inability to prove creditworthiness fully. The counsel referenced case laws supporting the contention that confirmation of gifts as income under section 68 does not automatically warrant a penalty.The Tribunal reviewed the submissions, case laws, and material on record. It noted that certain additions were set aside by the ITAT, indicating that penalties on those additions did not survive and were deleted. Regarding the gift received from a specific donor, the Tribunal observed that while creditworthiness was not fully proven, identity and genuineness were established. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the provisions of section 68 create a legal fiction for assessment purposes, not necessarily applicable to penalty proceedings. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on the arguments presented and the relevant case laws cited by the assessee.In conclusion, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and upholding the deletion of the penalty. The decision was pronounced in open court as per the date mentioned in the order.