TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 1032
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne, Ahmedabad. During the assessment proceedings, the details of evidences were called for in respect of the fund invested amounting to Rs. 10,26,300/- out of the total amount of Rs. 56,26,300/-. The Ld.AO was not satisfied regarding the explanation given by the assessee on certain amount particularly of Rs. 1,45,000/- invested by the assessee in the absence of evidence in support of the same. The Assessing Officer (AO) ultimately treated the same as unexplained investment deemed to be the income of the assessee and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The penalty proceedings was proposed to be initiated u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. 4. Before the AO, the assessee has furnished a written submission on 03.11.2011 explaining the particulars on different heads to make the total consideration of Rs. 56,26,300/- along with the supporting evidences. However, no evidence of saving and KVPs in regard to the particular amount of Rs. 1,45,000/- could be furnished by the assessee and the same was treated as unexplained in the absence of any supporting evidence furnished by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the concurrent findings of the lower authorities on the premise that the assessee has indeed concealed the income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 10. We have considered the rival submissions made by the parties. We have perused the relevant material available on record. The main issue is required to be examined as to whether the penalty can be imposed in respect of addition of Rs. 1,45,000/- on the mere observation that there is concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. We have gone through the assessment order, the order passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and the order of the Ld.CIT(A) as well. None of these authorities have made any deliberation on the finding that there had been any conscious act on the part of the assessee in furnishing inaccurate particulars with an intention to evade tax. 11. Considering the statute, we find two conditions are to be satisfied in order to invoke section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The first condition refers to concealment of income and the second condition refers to furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. In this particular case, the AO failed to establish that there was any cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been found as of fact that he has not disclosed all the facts which was material to the computation of his income. 46. The explanation, having regard to the decisions of this Court, must be preceded by a finding as to how and in what manner he furnished the particulars of his income. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that for the said purpose the Income Tax Officer must arrive at a satisfaction in this behalf. [See Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd., 246 ITR 568 and Diwan Enterprises v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 246 ITR 571]. 47. It is furthermore of some significance that the Commissioner in its order dated 30.11.2000 made a terse comment that the assessee cannot shift the burden of concealment to any other person, meaning thereby, the registered valuer. He, furthermore, made a comment that the registered valuer had adopted a strange way of valuing although no reason, far less than sufficient or cogent reason, has been assigned in support thereof. The said comments were unwarranted. 48. Primary burden of proof, therefore, is on the revenue. The statute requires satisfaction on the part of the assessing officer. He is required to arrive at a s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....45,000/- as financed from personal savings including pin amount over a period of time. It also appears that while the total investment is an amount of Rs. 56,26,300/-, the amount in question of Rs. 1,45,000/- is a very negligible one and since the assessee has filed her return for a long time, it can be well presumed that this amount has been shown as an income of the assessee in the earlier assessment years. Neither the conduct of the assessee in furnishing the above documents in support of the said amount of investment, cannot be said to have the requisite mens rea of evasion of tax which is sine qua non for imposition of penalty. The explanation offered by the assessee seems to be bonafide. No deliberate and/or willful attempt had been made either by the assessee in providing inaccurate particulars. There is no conscious concealment of particulars of the income of the assessee neither he deliberately furnished inaccurate income and therefore no penalty proceedings was liable to be initiated against the assessee in the present facts and circumstances of the case, and further that no penalty can be imposed on the basis of the finding made in the order impugned. 13. While dealing ....