TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal dismisses revenue appeal, upholds deletion of penalty for income concealment.</h1> <h3>The ACIT, Circle-1, Kota Versus Shri Harbans Lal Sethi</h3> The ACIT, Circle-1, Kota Versus Shri Harbans Lal Sethi - TMI Issues:Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income.Analysis:1. The appeal by the revenue challenged the deletion of penalty of Rs. 51,49,485/- by the ld. CIT (A) for the assessment year 2011-12.2. The assessee, engaged in the business of contract, surrendered undisclosed income of Rs. 1,51,50,000/- during a survey but did not declare it in the return of income filed later.3. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) as the income was not disclosed, and eventually levied the penalty.4. The ld. CIT (A) deleted the penalty, considering the inadvertent omission of income in the return and the fact that tax was already paid on the surrendered income.5. The revenue argued that non-declaration of surrendered income in the return constituted concealment, relying on the AO's order.6. The assessee contended that the payment of due tax on the surrendered income, reflected in the books, showed bonafide intent despite the omission in the return.7. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's payment of tax, non-claiming of refund, and inadvertent omission of income did not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.8. The ld. CIT (A) based the decision on the principle that penalty under section 271(1)(c) applies only when conditions are met, and concealment implies active hiding of income.9. The Tribunal upheld the ld. CIT (A)'s decision, finding the assessee's explanation falling under Explanation-2 to section 271(1)(c) and no deliberate intent behind the omission.10. Consequently, the appeal by the revenue was dismissed, affirming the deletion of the penalty.This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key arguments, considerations, and conclusions regarding the penalty for concealment of income under section 271(1)(c) in the given case.
TaxTMI 