2015 (7) TMI 202 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds penalties for undisclosed bank accounts, citing actual peak balances.

Shri Naranbhai S. Patel Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 12 (1), Ahmedabad.

The Tribunal upheld the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) for undisclosed bank accounts, dismissing the assessee's Miscellaneous Applications. The ... Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - unexplained peak credit - Held that:- It is not in dispute that the undisclosed bank account which was detected by the department contains transfer entries to other 5 undisclosed bank accounts maintained by the assessee. In view of this fact the Tribunal concluded that the subsequent disclosure of the assessee of existence of the said 5 bank accounts cannot be held as voluntary. We do not find any error much less an apparent error in the above finding of the Tribunal. In the instant case it was not the issue that there was difference in the peak balance as disclosed by the assessee and the peak balance as estimated by the Department and only in respect of the difference the penalty was levied by the Department under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, we find no error in the finding of the Tribunal in this respect. Decision of Shri Becharbhai P. Parmar (2012 (4) TMI 418 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ) is applicable in the instant case wherein expressly stated about the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Additions made on the basis of estimation may be one of the grounds on which discretion not to impose penalty may be exercised. However, in the absence of any requirement to prove the concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars found in section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot form the sole basis to delete penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Thus the said decision squarely covers the case where penalty under section 271(1)(c) is levied. We therefore, do not find any error much less an apparent error in the order of the Tribunal in this respect.- Decided against assessee. Issues Involved:1. Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.2. Explanation of the source of deposits in undisclosed bank accounts.3. Voluntariness of the disclosure of additional bank accounts by the assessee.4. Distinguishability of case laws relied upon by the assessee.5. Applicability of the decision in the case of Becharbhai P. Parmar.Detailed Analysis:1. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):The Tribunal upheld the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for the Assessment Years 1991-92 and 1992-93. The assessee's returns disclosed incomes of Rs. 31,880 and Rs. 36,880 respectively, but investigations revealed undisclosed bank accounts. The peak balances in these accounts were treated as income, leading to revised total incomes and subsequent penalties of Rs. 1,33,400 and Rs. 3,88,700. The Tribunal found that the addition was based on actual peak balances, not mere estimates, and thus justified the penalties.2. Explanation of the Source of Deposits:The assessee contended that the source of deposits was explained as initial capital contributions from several persons, used for investments in shares and securities. However, the Tribunal found no such observation in the assessment orders, indicating that the source of deposits remained unexplained. Therefore, the Tribunal did not find any error in its original order regarding this issue.3. Voluntariness of the Disclosure of Additional Bank Accounts:The assessee argued that the disclosure of five additional bank accounts was voluntary, as evidenced by a letter dated 1-12-1995 to the ADIT. However, the Tribunal noted that the initial undisclosed account detected by the Department contained transfer entries to these five accounts. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the disclosure was not voluntary but prompted by the Department's detection. The Tribunal found no apparent error in this conclusion.4. Distinguishability of Case Laws Relied Upon by the Assessee:The assessee cited cases of Murarilal Ratanlal Agarwal and Shri Ojas Ashokbhai Mehta, where penalties were levied on differences between peak balances declared by the assessee and those estimated by the Department. The Tribunal distinguished these cases, noting that in the present case, the penalty was based on the actual peak balance, not on any difference. Thus, the Tribunal found these precedents inapplicable and upheld the penalty.5. Applicability of the Decision in the Case of Becharbhai P. Parmar:The assessee argued that the case of Becharbhai P. Parmar, which involved a search and penalty under Section 158BFA, was not applicable as the present case involved Section 271(1)(c). However, the Tribunal cited the principle from Becharbhai P. Parmar that additions based on estimation alone cannot be the sole basis for deleting penalties under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal found this principle relevant and applicable, reinforcing the legitimacy of the penalties imposed.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee, affirming the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) for the undisclosed bank accounts. The Tribunal found no errors in its original order regarding the explanation of deposits, voluntariness of disclosures, applicability of case laws, and the relevance of the Becharbhai P. Parmar decision. The order was pronounced on June 19, 2015, in Ahmedabad.