1979 (3) TMI 118 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds cancellation of penalty under Income Tax Act for 1972-73; Department fails to prove concealment.

SMT. RAJ KUMARI SACHDEVA. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER.

The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision to cancel the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1972-73. The Department ... - Issues:Appeal against cancellation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1972-73.Detailed Analysis:1. The Department appealed against the cancellation of a penalty by the AAC under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, relating to the assessment year 1972-73. The ITO had added a cash credit of Rs. 15,000 under section 68 of the Act, which the assessee failed to explain satisfactorily. The ITO imposed a penalty based on alleged concealment of income by the assessee.2. The assessee contended that since the creditor was a regular assessee, the availability of funds should have been examined, and there was no basis for the addition under section 68. The AAC considered the penalty proceedings as quasi-criminal and required the Department to prove that the disputed amount constituted the assessee's income. Efforts to contact the creditor were unsuccessful, and the AAC found no evidence of concealment by the assessee.3. The Tribunal analyzed whether the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) was applicable. As the penalty was not imposed under the Explanation, the burden was on the Department to prove concealment. Citing legal precedent, the Tribunal held that the Department must establish all elements to prove concealment, including that the income belonged to the assessee.4. The Tribunal examined the assessment orders of the creditor, Shri Satpal Agarwalla, for previous years, showing confirmed income and balance sheets. Despite the addition of Rs. 15,000 in the assessment, the Tribunal found insufficient grounds for imposing a penalty solely based on this addition. Legal principles from precedent cases were applied to conclude that the Department failed to prove concealment of income by the assessee.5. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision to cancel the penalty, as the Department did not provide substantial evidence to establish that the assessee had concealed income. The appeal by the Department was dismissed, affirming the cancellation of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1972-73.