2018 (9) TMI 1921 - HC - Income Tax

High Court upholds Tribunal decision, dismissing income tax appeal, no concealment found

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Smt. Prabhjot Kaur Chhabra

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Smt. Prabhjot Kaur Chhabra - [2019] 419 ITR 94 (MP) Issues:- Concealment of income and inaccurate particulars- Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961- Revised return filing beyond the allowed time limit- Applicability of precedents in penalty imposition casesConcealment of Income and Inaccurate Particulars:The case involved an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against a decision by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the assessee, stating that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, thus canceling a penalty of Rs. 1,10,00,000 levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts revolved around a revised return filed by the assessee showing additional income from capital gains related to disputed land transactions.Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had affirmed the penalty, concluding that the additional income from capital gains was meant to be concealed, as it was not shown in the original or subsequent returns. However, the Appellate Tribunal found that the revised return was filed much before the notice under Section 153-C of the Act, and no documentary evidence was found to support the Assessing Officer's assertion of intentional concealment.Revised Return Filing Beyond Allowed Time Limit:The Assessing Officer had imposed the penalty based on the revised return filed beyond the time allowed under Section 139(5) of the Act. The Commissioner held that the revised return would not save the assessee from consequences of intentional filing of false returns. However, the Tribunal noted that the return was revised before the notice under Section 153-C was issued, indicating no intentional concealment.Applicability of Precedents in Penalty Imposition Cases:The Tribunal referred to precedents from various High Courts, emphasizing that penalty cannot be imposed solely based on a revised return showing higher income. It highlighted cases where penalties were not levied due to revised returns or withdrawn claims. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty in this case was not justified as there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, aligning with legal principles established in previous judgments.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the income tax appeal filed by the Revenue, stating that there was no illegality in the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The Court found no substantial question of law arising and upheld the Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty, based on the lack of evidence supporting intentional concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.