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 reverses penalty for income concealment under IT Act, citing credible explanation & independent assessment</h1> <h3>Sudhir Awasthi Versus I.T.O., Ward 5 (2), Jaipur</h3> Sudhir Awasthi Versus I.T.O., Ward 5 (2), Jaipur - TMI Issues involved:- Appeal against penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 for concealment of income in respect of unexplained investment under section 69A for the assessment year 2006-07.Detailed Analysis:1. The appellant contested the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for an addition of Rs. 10,00,000 made to the returned income, related to unexplained cash deposits in the bank. The Assessing Officer (AO) justified the penalty by highlighting the unproved sources of the cash deposits and the failure to declare the income, leading to inaccurate particulars of income. The AO found the explanation provided by the appellant unsatisfactory, falling within Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c). The appellant challenged the penalty in the first appeal, arguing that the penalty was upheld solely based on the quantum findings without independent consideration of the penalty proceedings.2. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty based on the ITAT's quantum findings, emphasizing the unexplained cash deposits and dismissing the appellant's explanation regarding a gift from the appellant's ailing father. The appellant argued that the penalty should not be imposed merely due to sustained additions in quantum proceedings, citing legal precedents. The appellant maintained that the cash deposits were from a genuine gift received from the father, supported by documentary evidence. The appellant highlighted the near-death condition of the father and the delay in depositing the cash due to medical emergencies, refuting any intention to conceal income.3. The appellant further contended that the quantum findings should not automatically lead to penalty imposition, emphasizing the distinct nature of penalty proceedings. The appellant cited various legal cases to support the argument that the burden of proof regarding the source of funds was discharged, shifting the onus to the revenue authorities. The appellant criticized the authorities for relying solely on quantum observations without independent assessment in the penalty proceedings.4. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not provided any additional grounds to support the penalty, merely relying on the ITAT's quantum findings. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's reasonable explanation regarding the gift from the father and the unique circumstances leading to the delay in cash deposits. The Tribunal emphasized the need for independent consideration in penalty proceedings and concluded that the penalty was unjustified, ultimately allowing the appeal and deleting the penalty.In conclusion, the Tribunal overturned the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) based on the appellant's reasonable explanation, the unique circumstances surrounding the cash deposits, and the lack of independent assessment in the penalty proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
