AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 1517
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edings to buy mental peace and non-imposition of penalty. The assessee was given sufficient opportunity to explain the opening capital. Assessee has voluntarily admitted the income of undisclosed sources. Therefore, the AO has imposed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. The matter carried to ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal. 5. The ld. Authorized Representative has filed the written submissions, which reads as under :- "Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual and filed her return of income for the first time declaring income from salary for Rs. 3,00,000/- and Business income al Rs. 1,25,611/-. Assessee has shown Opening Capital for Rs. 13,43,020/- briefing details of receipts from Years 1999 to 2008. Out of the opening capital of Rs. 13,43,020/- assessee surrendered Rs. 7,17,000/- as additional income and paid the tax there on for Rs. 3,02,580/- with interest during assessment proceedings to buy mental peace and non imposition of penalty. Assessee consented to pay tax to avoid further litigation and to buy mental peace and instead of offering further explanation, assessee voluntarily surrendered before AO and paid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the instant case, such onus which shifted on the department had not been discharged. Therefore no penalty imposable on the assessee. Relied on Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal -(2001)251 ITR 0009 SC Penalty under s. 271(l)(c)-Concealment- Revised return filed showing higher income-Assessee surrendered the income after persistent queries by AO-However, revised returns have been regularised by Revenue-Explanation of the assessee that he has declared additional income to buy peace and to come out of vexed litigation could be treated as bona fide-Penalty rightly cancelled-No interference warranted and penalty under s. 271(l)(c) was not leviable.-CIT vs., Suresh Chandra Mittal (2000) 158 CTR (MP) 26 : (2000) 241 ITR 124 (MP) affirmed Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2000) 241 ITR 0124 MP Penalty under s. 271(l)(c)-Concealment-Revised return filed showing higher income-Assessee had surrendered the income after persistent queries by A O-However, revised returns have been regularised by Revenue-Explanation of the assessee that he has declared additional incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs for assessment were completed after making detailed enquiry and since the assessee had voluntarily surrendered some income in the revised return to buy peace with the Department, no penalty under s. 271(l)(c) was leviable-Accordingly, Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT under s. 263-No substantial question of law involved- Findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal not open to challenge-Appeal dismissed Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Rajiv Garg & Ors. : (2009) 313 ITR 0256 P & H Penalty under s. 271(1 )(c)-Concealment-Surrender of additional income in return filed pursuant to notice under s. 148-Return was accompanied by a note wherein the assessee stated that he has surrendered the entire amount of sale proceeds of shares to buy peace of mind and to avoid hazards of litigation and also to save himself from any penal action- Aforesaid explanation was neither rejected nor it was held to be mala fide-Tribunal has recorded a pure finding of fact that the Revenue has not placed any material or evidence on record to discharge its burden of proving concealment-It has further held that the additional income was offered by the assessee in good faith and to buy peace-Penalty un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of affairs and even while being under obligation to make it known to others, and in particular authorities under the Act fails or refuses to do so-It is then, and only then, that he can be said to have concealed and once factum of concealment is proved, his attempt to voluntarily disclose it does not save him-However, an inadvertent mistake, or a bona fide belief as to classification, or character of an amount, cannot per se provide a ground for levy of penalty-In instant case assessee agreed to treat two sundry creditors as income as a measure of purchasing peace-Lack of any mala fide intention on part of assessee clear from the fact that those two items were carried forward from previous year and were not new additions at all- There was no ingredients of concealment-Thus penalty imposed by AO u/s 271 (I )(c) was rightly deleted by CIT(A)-Revenues ' appeal dismissed. Late N. R. Palanivel Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (2015) 273 CTR 0224 (Mad) Penalty u/s 271(l)(c)-Validity of- Assessee engaged in business of operating transport bus filed return of income-Pursuant to survey u/s 133A in premises of assessee, a statement was recorded with regard to fixed deposits made by a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and the Explanation to Section 271(1) raises a presumption of concealment, when a difference is noticed by the Assessing Officer between the reported and assessed income. The burden was then on the assessee to show otherwise, by cogent and reliable evidence and when the initial onus placed by the explanation, had been discharged by the assessee, the onus shifts on the Revenue to show that the amount in question constituted their income and not otherwise. Where explanation made on basis of Explanation B to Section 271(l)(c) was satisfied by assessee and his legal heirs to some extent however, same was not considered by revenue authorities, then penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) was not justified. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Mathura Commercial Co. (2014) 361 ITR 0380 (All) 6 Penalty u/s. 271(l)(c)-Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc.-In return filed by assessee, assessee had shown various outstanding amount against different parties AO issued notices to assessee to explain and accordingly opportunity was granted by AO to assessee with regard to different en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to prove concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income-Such onus was not discharged by AO-Order of Tribunal confirmed In the case of Mak Data P. Ltd., v.v. Commissioner of Income Tax-ll Civil Appeal No.9772, the 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, when a difference is noticed by the Assessing Officer between the reported and assessed income. The burden is then on the assessee to show otherwise, by cogent and reliable evidence and when the initial onus placed by the explanation, has been discharged by the assessee, the onus shifts on the Revenue to show that the amount in question constituted their income and not otherwise. Factually, in present case, it was found that the onus cast upon the assessee had been discharged by giving a cogent and reliable explanation. Therefore, if the department did not agree with the explanation, then the onus was on the department to prove that there was concealme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Commissioner of Income Tax wherein it was held that in order to justify levy of penalty, there must be some material or circumstances leading to reasonable conclusion that amount does not represent assessee's income and circumstances must show that there was conscious concealment or act of furnishing of inaccurate particulars, penalty was not imposable in present case. AO imposed penalty on erroneous assumptions which was wrongly confirmed by CIT(A). Relied upon National Textile vs Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 249 ITR 125 (Guj). Ajit Kumar Surana Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (2014) 39 CCH 0138 Kol Trib. Penalty u/s. 271(l)(c)-Concealment of income-Revenue during course of investigation based on information from Financial Intelligence Unit CFIU') came to know that huge sums of money were deposited and withdrawn from Bank accounts with M/s. "A " Bank in name of five individuals i.e. V, P, B, S & G-On issuance of summons u/s. 131 only B&P appeared and pleaded ignorance of Bank accounts, except for their remembrance that some account opening forms were signed by them, at behest of assessee-Assessee in letter dated 19.04.2010 addressed to DDIT (I) specifically sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ow AO reached to satisfaction- There was an absence of a discernable element of concealment in additions made- Penalty imposed u/s 271(l)(c) was not justified and set aside-Assessee's appeal allowed. " 6. The Ld. Senior D.R. relied u0pon the order of I.T.A.T. Indore Bench in the case of CIT vs. Alpa Laboratories passed in I.T.A.No. l487/Ind/2013. 7. Similarly, the Ld. Senior D.R. also relied upon the order of Hon'ble M.P.High Court in the case of Garden Silk Weaving Factory vs. CIT, (1994) 207 ITR 394 (MP). Also in the case of CIT vs. R. C. Gupta, 15 CTR 53 ( Raj ). He has also relied upon the decision in the case of K.P. Madhusudhanan vs. CIT, (2001) 169 CTR ( S.C.) 489, in the case of Mak Data vs. CIT, 250 ITR 594 ( S. C.) and in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Chandrakanta and Another, (1994) 205 ITR 607 (MP). 8. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the position of law regarding levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has undergone a substantial change after insertion of Explanation I to Section 271(1)(c) with effect from 01.04.1976. Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) raises a presumption that as and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lars of income implies furnishing of details or information about the income which are not in conformity with the fact or truth. The details or information about income deals which are factual detail of income and this cannot be extended to the area, which are subjective such as status of taxability of income, admissibility of deduction and interpretation of law. Furnishing of inaccurate information, thus, relates to furnishing the factual incorrect details and information about the income. The admission or rejection of a claim subject to exercise and whether the claim is accepted or rejected has nothing to do with furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Raising a legal claim, even if it is ultimately found to be legally unacceptable cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We find that, in this case, the assessee has made a bona fide legal claim, which was not accepted by the tax authority or judicial authority. We find that the assessee's claim was not accepted by the authority, it does not mean that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajasthan Spinning and We....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turn of income. During the assessment proceedings, the AO has recorded a statement u/s131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and statement was recorded, wherein the assessee has claimed that she is the only daughter of his father and she was the only daughter in his family. Therefore, she was given Rs. 2 lakhs. Moreover, her mother has given Rs. 1 lakh and after the death of father, his brother had given Rs. 50,000/-, therefore, totaling to Rs. 3.50 lakhs was given and she was giving this amount to various persons and from that amount the capital was increased up to Rs. 6,26,020/- and she has admitted that no books of account were admitted and she has admitted that she has earned the income of Rs. 7,17,000/- and it was declared during the assessment proceedings. We find from the explanation of the assessee that the assessee has tried to explain the facts, but the assessee could not prove this amount before the AO. WE find that similar issue had come up before the Hon'ble A.P. High Court in the case of Chennupatti Tyres & Rubber Products, wherein it was held as under :- "Held, before levying penalty u/s 271(l)(c) revenue has to discharge its burden to prove that there was some inten....