1993 (6) TMI 127 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds Penalties for Income Concealment via Inflated Balances

LENSES CENTRE. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER.

LENSES CENTRE. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER. - TTJ 049, 021, ITD 047, 122, Issues Involved:1. Concealment of income for assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76.2. Validity of intangible additions and their set-off against inflated trade creditors' balances.3. Applicability and justification of penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Concealment of Income for Assessment Years 1974-75 and 1975-76:The original assessments for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 were completed on 21st March 1977 and 25th March 1978, respectively. A search conducted on 22nd December 1977 revealed that the assessee had concealed income by inflating balances in the accounts of trade creditors. The total difference in the trade creditors' balances was Rs. 1,26,418, with Rs. 11,000 pertaining to the assessment year 1974-75 and Rs. 75,700 to the assessment year 1975-76. Notices under Section 148 were issued, and the assessee filed returns offering the same income as originally assessed. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) found that the intangible additions made in earlier years could not be set off against the inflated balances and determined the total income at Rs. 51,429 for 1974-75 and Rs. 1,33,920 for 1975-76, initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c).2. Validity of Intangible Additions and Their Set-off Against Inflated Trade Creditors' Balances:During reassessment proceedings, the assessee argued that the total intangible additions made from 1968-69 to 1975-76 should cover the difference in the trade creditors' balances. The ITO rejected this contention, stating that the intangible additions were made for different purposes and could not be considered for set-off. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating, 'There is no connection or relation whatsoever between the two additions.' The assessee's plea for telescoping the intangible additions into the inflated trade creditors' balances was thus not accepted.3. Applicability and Justification of Penalties Under Section 271(1)(c):Penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated for both assessment years. The assessee contended that the discrepancies were due to mistakes by the accountant and that there was no intention to evade tax. However, the ITO and the appellate authorities found that the assessee had concealed income by inflating trade creditors' balances. The Tribunal noted that the assessee admitted to the discrepancies and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation. The Tribunal observed, 'The explanation is found to be false as well as untenable,' and upheld the penalties, stating that the concealment of income was evident and the assessee was liable for penalties under Section 271(1)(c).Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, confirming the penalties imposed for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee's arguments for set-off of intangible additions and the contention that the discrepancies were due to accounting errors were not accepted. The penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were upheld as justified and applicable.