TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1120
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A was conducted in one of the establishments of the appellant, Al-Arif Hospital, Ambalathara, Trivandrum, on 12.12.2005 and some books of accounts were impounded. Subsequently, the assessee filed its return for the year 2004-05 on 31.3.2006, showing a deficit of Rs. 1,89,38,383/-. Later, on 24.11.2006, summons was issued requisitioning some other books of accounts and finally, on 28.12.2006, Annexure A assessment order under section 144 was passed, making additions of Rs. 12,51,427/- towards short collection at the hospital. Further, though the assessee had claimed deduction on account of capital expenditure at Rs. 1,84,39,383/-, the Assessing Officer allowed only Rs. 68,02,297/-. 3. In the appeal filed, the Commissioner of Income Tax (A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to be evaded by reason of the concealment of particulars of his income or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. Explanation 1 to this section, in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of this judgment, provides that where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under this Act, such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him, then, the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purpose of section 271(1)(c), be dee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d deduction of Rs. 1,84,39,383/-. The Assessing Officer allowed only Rs. 68,02,297/-. The Commissioner (Appeals), after verification of some of the documents produced by the assessee, allowed the claim except to the extent of Rs. 34.65 lakhs. This finding also has become final. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid findings against the assessee, this is a case where clause (c) of section 271(1) providing concealment of the particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income is attracted. 10.The only explanation offered by the assessee was that its books of accounts for the relevant year were impounded by the Revenue and therefore, the correct figures of income could not be furnished as per its return of income. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties. Our attention was also invited to the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textiles Processors [(2008) 306 ITR 277] to contend that willful concealment is not essential for attracting civil liability of penalty under section 271(1)(c). 13. Counsel for the appellant sought to rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd [(2010) 322 ITR 158] to contend that the fact that a return is filed with incorrect particulars did not attract the provisions of section 271(1)(c). Though this principle is not open to doubt, we cannot ignore the fact that the above judgment was rendered in a case where the assessee had made an incorrect claim in the return on th....