TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 847
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant has raised the following questions of law for our consideration: (i) Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Tribunal erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 38,71,366/levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for alleged concealment of income with respect to the addition made u/s 41(1) of the Act on account cessation of liabilities ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Tribunal is perverse in as much as the same is based on surmises, conjectures and suspicions, by taking into account incorrect, irrelevant and extraneous considerations while ignoring relevant material and considerations ?" 3. For the subject a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income in its return of income for subject assessment year. The Assessing Officer by order dated 26th March, 2010 confirmed the notice interalia holding that assessee has shown non existing liability as still payable and it was only after due inquiry by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment it came to light that the liability claimed to the extent of Rs. 1.05 crores had ceased to exist. This led to the conclusion that the appellant had furnished inaccurate income leading to concealing of income. In the circumstances, minimum penalty of Rs. 38.71 lakhs was imposed under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act upon the appellant. 5. On further appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by order dated 3rd February, 2011 upheld t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugned order holds that it is established that the assessee had filed inaccurate particulars of claim of income resulting in concealing of income. In above view, the tribunal by the impugned order upheld the order of the lower authorities imposing penalty of Rs. 38.71 lakhs under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the revenue attempted to once again take us over applicability of Section 41(1) of the Act to the facts of present case. We stopped him from doing the same. The applicability of Section 41(1) of the Act to the present facts stands concluded by the decision of this Court dated 16th December, 2010 from which a Special Leave Petition filed by the assessee before the Apex Court was also dismiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er. The legal claim made before us that once a liablility is shown in the balance sheet, it must follow that it is bonafide, is not understood. The liability shown in the balance sheet as existing is found to be false. The assessee has to show the reason why he believed at the time he filed his balance sheet, it was true. No such attempt was even made. It was next contended that no claim was made in the return of income and therefore imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be sustained. We are unable to appreciate the above submission. The fact is that in terms of Section 139 of the Act a return of income under the Act has to be filed along with the balance sheet and profit and loss account. In its absence the return....