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>Penalty upheld for income concealment under Section 271(1)(c) - undisclosed investments admitted post search.</h1> <h3>Shri Shavva Sudheer Reddy Hyderabad Versus Asstt. C.I.T. Circle 3 (1) Hyderabad</h3> Shri Shavva Sudheer Reddy Hyderabad Versus Asstt. C.I.T. Circle 3 (1) Hyderabad - TMI Issues Involved:1. Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income.2. Validity of the penalty notices and recording of satisfaction.3. Explanation and substantiation of undisclosed investments.Summary of Judgment:1. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Concealment of Income:The core issue in this appeal is the levy of a penalty of Rs. 11,27,850/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for concealment of income. The assessee had initially filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 8,50,600/-. Following a search and seizure operation under Section 132, the assessee filed a revised return declaring an income of Rs. 58,00,600/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A, making an addition of Rs. 36,50,000/- for undisclosed investments under Section 69B, thereby assessing the total income at Rs. 94,50,600/-. The AO held that the assessee is liable for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income, as the undisclosed investments were admitted in sworn statements during the assessment proceedings.2. Validity of the Penalty Notices and Recording of Satisfaction:During the appeal proceedings, the assessee contended that the penalty notices did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings were initiated under. However, the CIT(A) observed that the AO had clearly mentioned in the assessment order that the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of income and made a specific reference to Explanation 5A. The penalty notices issued also clearly mentioned 'concealment of income,' thereby satisfying the requirements of Section 271(1)(c).3. Explanation and Substantiation of Undisclosed Investments:The assessee argued that the undisclosed investments were offered to tax to avoid protracted litigation. However, the CIT(A) noted that the material seized during the search operation led to the admission of income, and it was not a voluntary disclosure. The CIT(A) cited the Supreme Court's decision in Mak Data Pvt Ltd vs. CIT, which held that voluntary disclosure does not absolve the assessee from penalty proceedings. The assessee failed to provide any documentary evidence to substantiate that the payments made for the investments were out of admitted income. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee had concealed income and upheld the penalty levied by the AO.Tribunal's Decision:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee could not explain the source of the undisclosed investments and that the additions were made based on incriminating evidence found during the search. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.Conclusion:The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, and the penalty of Rs. 11,27,850/- levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income was upheld. The Tribunal emphasized that the penalty was justified as the undisclosed investments were not voluntarily disclosed but were admitted only after being confronted with the seized material during the assessment proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
