| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 2694 (Del-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271(1)(c)
Clearly, assessee had failed to controvert the facts that impugned amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was an accommodation entry. No explanation whatever as envisaged under section 271(1)(c) had been adduced. In such situation, even failure on the part of AO to strike off the irrelevant clause in penalty notice and voluntary disclosure did not release assessee from mischief of penal proceedings under section 271(1)(c) as it was a clear case of concealment, accordingly, levy of penalty was justified.
|
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars - Deliberate concealment - No bona fide explanation--Assessee pleading non-striking off of irrelevant clause in penalty notice
AO received information as to assessee having received accommodation entry in the form of unsecured loan from M/s. G. In reply to show-cause notice assessee submitted that no documents could be furnished in support of loan of Rs. 10 lakhs from M/s. G and assessee and offered the amount plus interest of Rs. 1 lakh as its additional income over and above the declared income. AO holding that assessee had deliberately concealed income in order to evade payment of taxes, imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c). Assessee challenged this on the ground of non-striking off of irrelevant portion in penalty notice. Held : Clearly, assessee had failed to controvert the facts that impugned amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was an accommodation entry. No explanation whatever as envisaged under section 271(1)(c) had been adduced. In such situation, even failure on the part of AO to strike off the irrelevant clause in penalty notice and voluntary disclosure did not release assessee from mischief of penal proceedings under section 271(1)(c) as it was a clear case of concealment. Accordingly, levy of penalty was justified.
Applied :MAK Data (P) Ltd. v. CIT-II 2013 TaxPub(DT) 2358 (SC) : (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC)Relied on :PR. CIT-21 v. DR. Vandana Gupta 2018 TaxPub(DT) 1008 (Del-HC)
REFERRED : Maharaj Garage & Company v. The CIT Vidarbha, Nagpur, Now CIT-II, Nagpur 2018 TaxPub(DT) 471 (Bom-HC) : (2018) 400 ITR 292 (Bom), CIT v. Smt. Kaushalya & Ors. 1995 TaxPub(DT) 109 (Bom-HC) : (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom), Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation v. Dy. CIT, 22 (2), Mumbai in 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1242 (Mum-Trib) and Dhaval K. Jain v. ITO Ward 16(3)(1), Mumbai (ITA No. 996/Mum/2014 dated 30-9-2016).
FAVOUR : Against the assessee
A.Y. : 2006-07
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|