ITAT reinstates penalty for willful tax evasion, revised return not voluntary

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reinstated a penalty of Rs. 23,21,194/- under Section 271(1)(c) for willful tax evasion by an assessee who failed to declare deemed capital gains, despite multiple opportunities, only doing so after being cornered by the Assessing Officer. The ITAT held that the revised return was not voluntary but made under compulsion, emphasizing the deliberate actions of the assessee aimed at evading tax. The decision underscored that filing a revised return does not absolve an assessee from the presumption of concealing income in the original return.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee willfully evaded tax by not furnishing accurate particulars of income.
2. Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is justified.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Willful Evasion of Tax by Not Furnishing Accurate Particulars of Income:

The Revenue argued that the assessee willfully evaded tax by not declaring deemed capital gains of Rs. 1,03,44,000/- under Section 54F(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which arose from the cancellation of a flat booking within three years. The assessee had initially filed a return of income under Section 139(1) on 25-08-2005, declaring an income of Rs. 15,90,638/-, which did not include the deemed capital gains. Even after a search and seizure action under Section 132(1) on 17-01-2008 and subsequent notice under Section 153A, the assessee did not declare the deemed capital gains in the return filed on 10-10-2008. It was only at the fag end of the assessment proceedings that the assessee filed a revised return on 22-12-2009, declaring the deemed capital gains, claiming it was a voluntary disclosure.

2. Justification of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(c):

The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing income. The AO observed that the assessee's omission to declare the deemed capital gains was deliberate and intentional. The AO rejected the assessee's contention that the revised return was voluntary and bona fide, noting that the revised return was filed only after the AO had detected the omission during the scrutiny proceedings. The AO imposed a penalty of Rs. 23,21,194/-, being 100% of the tax sought to be avoided.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] initially deleted the penalty, accepting the assessee's claim that the revised return was a voluntary disclosure. The CIT(A) also observed that the addition was not based on any incriminating material found during the search, and the assessment was an unabated assessment as no assessment was pending on the date of the search.

However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) overturned the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the assessee's disclosure was not voluntary but was made under compulsion when cornered by the AO. The ITAT noted that the assessee had multiple opportunities to declare the deemed capital gains but chose not to do so until the AO detected the omission. The ITAT also rejected the assessee's argument that no addition could be made in the absence of incriminating material, stating that the bank statements reflecting the refund from the builder were themselves incriminating material.

The ITAT concluded that the assessee's conduct was not bona fide and upheld the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), emphasizing that the assessee's actions were deliberate and aimed at evading tax. The ITAT's decision was based on the principle that mere filing of a revised return does not absolve the assessee from the presumption of concealment of income in the original return.

Conclusion:

The ITAT allowed the Revenue's appeal, reinstating the penalty of Rs. 23,21,194/- under Section 271(1)(c) for willful evasion of tax by not furnishing accurate particulars of income. The ITAT's judgment emphasized the importance of truthful and timely disclosure of income by the assessee and highlighted that revised returns filed under compulsion do not negate the intent to evade tax.

---