AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 606
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted on 14.07.2009 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in sustaining the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the rejection of claim of sundry creditors which were offered for taxation in the course of the assessment proceedings by the Appellant even though the presumption on the concealment of Income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of Income as per explanation 1 was rebutted in the proceedings?" 3. The short issue, which falls for consideration in this appeal, is whether the penalty, which was imposed by the Assessing Officer, deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -IX, Chennai [CIT(A)] and restored by the Tribunal in the impugned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2006. 7. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] to delete the penalty on the ground that the assessee had explained the details regarding the sundry creditors and the amount of Rs. 34,51,447/- was stated to be on account of discount for the goods purchased which were defective etc. Further, the CIT(A) took note of the finding rendered by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had paid some of his sundry creditors in the ensuing years. Accordingly, the CIT(A) held that the explanation offered by the assessee cannot be stated to be incorrect or not sustainable. 8. The revenue challenged the order before the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal restored the penalty impose....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the assessee on the following lines: "19......Here, in this case, addition was made under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act. Section 69 is a deeming provision and the same cannot be extended to penalty proceedings. The Department cannot presume that there is a concealment. There must be independent finding. Further, the appellant had explained the source of income and therefore, it cannot be taken that there was concealment of income. Mere rejection of the explanation would not be a ground for levying penalty." 12. Ms.S.Premalatha, learned Standing counsel for the revenue referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mak Data (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT -II reported in [2013] 38 taxmann.com 448 (SC). The decision of the Hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xtiles Processors (supra)., reported in [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC) and held that it goes without saying that for applicability of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, condition stated therein must exist. The above said decision came up for consideration in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt., Ltd., [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC). On reading of Section 27(1)(c), the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that in order to bring the case under Section 271(1)(c), there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. In order to expose the assessee to penalty, unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision coul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t considered it as a good ground for cancellation of penalty, when the explanation on the differential amount was given by the assessee that the entries were made in the account and the Accountant had not made the correct entry. 11. In a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9772 of 2013, dated 30.10.2013 Mak Data P. Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-II,[2013] 38 taxmann.com 448, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the Explanation to Section 271(1), held that the question would be whether the assessee had offered an explanation for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and the Explanation to Section 271(1) raises a presumption of concealment,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntent to evade payment of tax. The details called for by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings were culled out from the books of the assessee. 16. In similar circumstances, this Court in Sree Krishna Electricals Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in [2009] 23 VST 249 held that penalty was not imposable under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, when the details were culled out from the books of accounts of the assessee/dealer. This decision was quoted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad Vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd., reported in [2010] 322 ITR 158(SC). In National Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2001] 249 ITR 0125, wh....