AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (10) TMI 545
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fferent when in fact they are one and the same. 2. Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1) (C on technical grounds, ignoring both the orders of assessment and penalty. 3. Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1) (C) ignoring the provision/language Section 273(B) which provides for exception to levy of penalty, and apart from the exceptions provided no other ground can be held to be a valid ground for deletion of penalty. 4. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble ITAT was correct in setting aside the orders of Revenue authorities and cancelling the direction of Ltd. CIT(A) for levying the penalty being 100% of tax of Rs. 35,03,011/- under Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is well settled law that under section 68, the credits of loans as well as the credits of business transaction are to be proved in the same manner. The assessee has to file documentary evidence or sufficient materials on record to prove the identity creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction in respect of credits of advance rent received from each farmers. In response to notice, the assessee told the theory only. No evidence has been placed on record by the assessee to prove each advance received from farmers as required by notice under section 142(1) as above." On the addition of Rs. 35,03,011/- the Assessing Officer held: "From the bank statements of account no. 01050/040104 maintained with State Bank of India Hathras, it has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and was not with regard to concealment of income. The assessee submitted his reply asserting that there was no mens rea and the return was filed without concealing any income. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax after considering the matter held that the assessee could not prove the identity and credit worthiness in respect of the amount of Rs. 26,33,328/-, claimed to have been taken as advance from the farmers and further the source could not be proved in respect of Rs. 35,03,011/-, which was found to be deposited in the Bank. The authority, consequently, held that the assessee had intentionally concealed the income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income and imposed a minimum penalty o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and another, (2007) 291 ITR 519 (S.C.), the expression "concealment" and "furnishing inaccurate particulars" has been explained by the Supreme Court, namely: "The expression "conceal" is of great importance. According to Law Lexicon, the word "conceal" means: "To hide or keep secret. The word 'conceal" is derived from the latin concelare which implies con+celare to hide. It means 'to hide or withdraw from observation; to cover or keep from sight; to prevent the discovery of; to withhold knowledge of'. The offence of concealment is thus a direct attempt to hide an item of income or a portion thereof from the knowledge of the Income Tax Authorities." In Webster's Dictionary....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R 642, the Gujrat High Court held that the order of penalty must clearly state whether it is for concealment or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kejriwal Iron Stores, 168 ITR 715 held that the Assessing Officer could not impose penalty on income on a different grounds where penalty proceedings commenced on a particular ground. In CIT Vs. Usha Marketing (P) Ltd., 319 ITR 9, the Supreme Court held that every addition made by the assessing authority would not result in penalty being imposed under section 271(1)(c) unless the parameters of Explanation 1 to the section were satisfied. Similarly, in CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 158, the Supreme Court....