High Court upholds penalty for income concealment under Income Tax Act

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-IV, New Delhi Versus M/s. Dass Trading & Holding (P) Ltd.

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-IV, New Delhi Versus M/s. Dass Trading & Holding (P) Ltd. - [2009] 226 CTR 533 Issues Involved:
1. Whether ITAT was correct in law in deleting the penalty of Rs.2,17,268/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 27(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Whether ITAT was correct in law in deleting the penalty on the ground that no satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order whereas the necessary satisfaction is clearly discernible as envisaged by the Supreme Court in 86 ITR 557 in the assessment order.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Deletion of Penalty Imposed by the Assessing Officer

Relevant Facts:
- The case pertains to the assessment year 1994-95.
- The assessee initially returned an income of Rs.2,790/-.
- The AO received a report from ADI (Inv.), Unit-V, indicating that the agricultural income disclosed by the assessee was bogus.
- Extensive inquiries were conducted, and statements of various persons were recorded.
- The assessee revised its return on 8.3.1996, offering agricultural income of Rs.3,76,222/- for taxation.
- The AO framed the assessment at Rs.3,89,514/- and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
- The AO imposed a penalty of Rs.2,17,268/- on the grounds that the revised return was not filed voluntarily and the assessee had concealed the true particulars of its income.

Tribunal's Findings:
- The Tribunal set aside the penalty order on two grounds:
1. The AO did not record satisfaction in the assessment order regarding the concealment of particulars of income.
2. The Tribunal relied on a similar case (AFL Developers (P) Ltd.), where penalty orders were canceled under similar circumstances.

High Court's Analysis:
- The High Court observed that the Tribunal's reliance on AFL Developers (P) Ltd. was misplaced because the facts of the two cases were not identical.
- The High Court noted that the Tribunal did not discuss the merits of the present case independently.
- The High Court found that the AO had valid reasons for concluding that the assessee had concealed income, as the revised return was filed only after the ADI (Inv.) report exposed the bogus claim.
- The High Court emphasized that the concealment of income in the original return attracts penalty even if a revised return is submitted before the assessment is completed, as held in CIT v. Sajjan, 178 ITR 643.

Conclusion:
- The High Court concluded that the penalty was rightly imposed as there was deliberate concealment of income and the explanation for filing the revised return was not bona fide.
- The High Court answered question of law No. (a) in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, setting aside the Tribunal's order and allowing the appeal with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-.

Issue 2: Necessity of Recording Satisfaction by the Assessing Officer

Relevant Facts:
- The Tribunal had set aside the penalty on the ground that the AO did not record satisfaction regarding the concealment of income in the assessment order.
- The High Court noted that due to the retrospective amendment to Section 271(1)(c) by the Finance Act, 2008, it was not necessary for the AO to specifically record satisfaction while initiating penalty proceedings.

High Court's Analysis:
- The High Court observed that the Tribunal's reliance on the judgment in CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd., 246 ITR 568, was misplaced due to the retrospective amendment.
- The High Court had already answered this question on 21.7.2009, stating that it was not necessary for the AO to record satisfaction explicitly.

Conclusion:
- The High Court reaffirmed that the retrospective amendment to Section 271(1)(c) negated the need for the AO to record satisfaction explicitly.
- The High Court's prior ruling on this issue stands, supporting the imposition of the penalty.

Summary:
The High Court upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, finding that the assessee had deliberately concealed income and filed a false return. The Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty was set aside due to its erroneous reliance on a similar case and failure to independently assess the merits of the present case. The High Court also reaffirmed that the retrospective amendment to Section 271(1)(c) negated the need for explicit recording of satisfaction by the AO, thereby supporting the penalty's imposition.