TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 285
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tral Circle-20(3), Mumbai (in short 'ACIT'/ AO) for the A.Y. 2011-12 vide order dated 30.07.2014 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'). 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. For this assessee has raised the following five effective grounds: - "1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals) has erred in confirming the assessing officer's penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -37 has erred in not appreciated the submissions made before the Assessing Officer and also before the learned Commi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e has not challenged these disallowances and accepted the additions for the reason that the assessee is a 78-year-old cancer patient. The AO started penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on these three disallowances and assessee explained each of the item. But the AO levied the penalty on these three items as the assessee could not furnish any satisfactory explanation/ details / submissions during the assessment proceedings so as to enable the AO to verify the veracity of the expenses claimed on the exempt income, TDS not deducted on payment made for purchase of software and business promotion expense. Even the AO noted that in penalty hearing the assessee has not presented any satisfactory evidences which can justify that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f income' has been not defined either in this Section nor anywhere else of the Act. One thing is certain that these two circumstances are not identical in details although they may lead to the same effect, namely, keeping certain portion of the income. The word 'conceal' is derived from the Latin word 'concelare' which implies to 'hide'. It signifies a deliberate, act of omission on the part of the Assessee. A mere omission or negligence would not constitute a deliberate act suppression falsi -T.Ashok Pai vs CIT (2007) 161 taxman 340, 292 ITR 11 (SC)." The assessee is in second appeal before Tribunal. 5. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee argued that it is evident from income and expenditure account of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are minimum expense on tea, coffee, etc. According to her, these are business expenses necessary for business expediency and these are to be incurred in regular course of business. However, she admitted that due to petty amounts on tea, coffee paid to tea boys, vouchers could not be maintained. But as regards to the genuineness of expense she claimed that this is necessary expenditure. In term of the above, she argued that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 7. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative argued that once the assessee has admitted these disallowances are not challenged in quantum, penalty automatically is to be levied. She also argu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which has been treated by the assessee as having life of one year and hence, written off and claim the same as expenses. We are of the view that the purchase of software does not attract any TDS provision. As regards to the disallowance of business promotion expenses for non-presentation of vouchers is for the reason that the amount paid on tea, coffee etc. on clients is due to smallness of denomination of payments and bills and vouchers could not be preserved. Accordingly, in our view this has not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income because the assessee has filed all the particulars of income before the AO during the assessment proceedings or in the return of income. This may be a case of disallowance of expenses but i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Enterprises Ltd., 246 ITR 568 and Diwan Enterprises v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 246 ITR 571]. 18. The order imposing penalty is quasi-criminal in nature and, thus, burden lies on the department to establish that the assessee had concealed his income. Since burden of proof in penalty proceedings varies from that in the assessment proceeding, a finding in an assessment proceeding that a particular receipt is income cannot automatically be adopted, though a finding in the assessment proceeding constitute good evidence in the penalty proceeding. In the penalty proceedings, thus, the authorities must consider the matter afresh as the question has to be considered from a different angle." 9. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ca....