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>ITAT Pune: No concealment of income found, penalty under section 271(1)(c) deleted</h1> <h3>Ravindra Anant Bhuskute Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4, Panvel.</h3> Ravindra Anant Bhuskute Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4, Panvel. - TMI Issues involved:Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealment of incomeFacts: The appellant, a Stenographer, sold inherited land along with co-owners but did not disclose the income from the sale in the belief that payment was not realized in the relevant year. The buyer's cheques were not cleared due to the Pen Co-operative Urban Bank's financial issues and RBI restrictions.Assessing Officer's Action: The AO computed long-term capital gains under Sec.50C and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,06,041 (100% of tax sought to be evaded) under Sec. 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income.CIT(A)'s Decision: The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, stating the appellant suppressed the transaction, showing an intention to conceal income.Appellate Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal found no evidence of actual receipt of income by the appellant in the relevant year. The appellant acted in good faith, believing the sale was incomplete due to non-receipt of consideration. Referring to K.C. Builders case, the Tribunal emphasized the need for evidence of concealment, which was lacking in this case.Legal Precedents: The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's judgment in K.C. Builders case and the Allahabad High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Mohanlal Sharma, emphasizing the absence of concealment of income in the absence of concrete evidence.Conclusion: Considering the facts, absence of mens rea or actus reus, and legal precedents, the Tribunal held that the penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) was unwarranted. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty, allowing the appellant's appeal.In summary, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune ruled in favor of the appellant, concluding that there was no concealment of income justifying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision was based on the lack of evidence of actual receipt of income, the appellant's good faith belief, and legal precedents emphasizing the need for concrete proof of concealment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
