2016 (1) TMI 363 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee's Tax Penalty Upheld for Evasion & Inaccurate Records

The Tribunal confirmed the levy of penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for all assessment years in question. The appeals by the ... Levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Held that:- In the present case, in fact, the contention of the assessee has been such that certainly calls for levy of penalty. First of all, the assessee found a way as to how, it can hide the information to the Department. Even after search action, the assessee has not come with the proof to show that the assessee has not concealed the particulars of income and at this point of time, the assessee has not come clean so as to explain exact quantum of income earned by the assessee with any supporting evidence. In the return of income filed consequent to the search operations, the assessee does not disclose either its true turnover or the true profit percentage. Even at this stage, additions have to be resorted to and the turnover is ultimately confirmed at the stage of first appellate proceedings. The cases, therefore, clearly call for confirmation of penalties. As the contention of the assessee is far from bona fide and there was a clear-cut strategy to not only evade taxes, but also to file inaccurate particulars of income even after search operation. As such, by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B.A.Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. v. CIT (1998 (1) TMI 7 - SUPREME Court) , we have no hesitation in confirming the penalty impugned u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act, 1961. - Decided against assessee. Issues Involved1. Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Detailed AnalysisCommon Issue: Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c)The appeals by the assessee are directed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The issue is common across different assessment years, and hence, the appeals are clubbed together for a common order.Facts of the CaseThe assessee, a surgeon by profession, filed returns of income for various assessment years, declaring professional income. A search under Section 132 was conducted on Dr. P. Ravichandran, which led to the estimation of the number of surgeries performed by the assessee and the corresponding income received.Estimation of IncomeThe Assessing Officer (AO) estimated the number of surgeries and the income based on the statements of Dr. P. Ravichandran and Dr. L. Srinivasan. The AO assumed the receipts and estimated the income, which was not substantiated by the assessee. The AO did not provide the basis for the number of operations or the statements relied upon, nor did the assessee get an opportunity to cross-examine Dr. P. Ravichandran.Tribunal's Findings on Quantum AdditionThe Tribunal, in its order dated 18.4.2013, fixed the number of surgeries at 570 and allowed an expenditure of Rs. 12,000 per case. The Tribunal's findings were based on the records and statements from hospital authorities, and it concluded that the AO's estimation was justified.Levy of PenaltyThe AO levied penalties for various assessment years, which were confirmed by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) observed that the assessee did not maintain reliable records for surgeries and fees received. The AO's efforts revealed unaccounted income, leading to the estimation of surgeries and fees, which was upheld by the Tribunal.Assessee's ContentionsThe assessee argued that the income was estimated based on different opinions and that there was no concealment of income. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal (251 ITR 09) to argue against the levy of penalty.Tribunal's Decision on PenaltyThe Tribunal noted that the assessee did not maintain proper books of account and failed to disclose the true state of affairs. The search operation revealed unaccounted income, and the assessee did not provide a bona fide explanation for the deposits in bank accounts. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was justified, as the assessee's actions indicated a clear strategy to evade taxes and file inaccurate particulars of income.ConclusionThe Tribunal confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for all assessment years under consideration. The appeals of the assessee were dismissed, and the penalties were upheld based on the findings of unaccounted income and the lack of proper records. The case highlighted the importance of maintaining accurate records and the consequences of tax evasion.