AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1725
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been field by the assessee. Therefore, the Bench decided to dispose off the appeal after considering the material available on record and the submissions of ld. DR. 3. Since both the appeals are interconnected and the similar issues are involved, therefore, for the sake of convenience we consider the facts and grounds narrated in ITA No.115/Ran/2016, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds :- 1. Because learned CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts while confirming the penalty u/s.271(1)(c). (a) the total tax arising by the learned lower authority, has been honestly accepted and deposited by the assessee. In the case of acceptation by the assessee the above penalty should not be imposed by the learned lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epted the addition made by the Assessing Officer and paid the tax accordingly. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd., (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC), has observed that "in order to expose the assessee to the penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provisions cannot be invoked. We support our view with the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, (2013) 359 ITR 565, wherein it is held as under :- Held : Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is a civil liability. Mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations or liabilities. Willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attract....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tax or such tax liability came to be admitted and if not it would have escaped from tax net and as opined by the AO in the assessment order. Only when no explanation is offered or the explanation offered is found to be false or when the assessee fails to prove that the explanation offered is not bonafide, an order imposing penalty could be passed. If the explanation offered, even though not substantiated by the assessee, but is found to be bonafide and all facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him, no penalty could be imposed. The direction referred to in Explanation IB to Section 271 of the Act should be clear and without any ambiguity. If the AO has not rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings. (Para 63) In the light of what we have stated above, it is clear that merely because the assessee agreed for addition and accordingly assessment order was passed on the basis of this addition and when the assessee has paid the tax and the interest thereon in the absence of any material on record to show the concealment of income, it cannot be inferred that the said addition is on account of concealment. Moreover, the assessee has offered the explanation. The said explanation is not found to be false. On the contrary, it is held to be bonafide. In fact in the assessment proceedings there is no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....application of any principles of law, there will be a mixed question of law and fact, and the inference from the facts found is, in such a case, a question of law. But where the final determination of the issue equally with the finding or ascertainment of the basic facts does not involve the application of any principle of law, an inference from the facts can not be regarded as one of law. The proposition that an inference from facts is one of law is, therefore, correct in its application to mixed questions of law and fact, but not to pure questions of fact. In the case of pure questions of fact an inference from the facts is as much a question of fact as the evidence of the facts. In the instant case, there was a finding of fact and unless....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....only a part of the evidence and ignoring the remaining evidence cannot be regarded as conclusively determinative of the question of fact raised before the Tribunal. It is for the income-tax authority to prove that a particular receipt is taxable. If, however, the receipt is accepted and certain amount is accepted as taxable, it can be added but from that it does not follow that it is accepted by the assessee that it has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed any income. The Tribunal had properly considered all the evidences in the instant case. Further, in the instant case, it was not said that the Tribunal had acted on material which was irrelevant to the enquiry or considered material which was partly relevant....