The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3497 (Mad-HC)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 260A

Penalty under that provision is a civil liability and willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as is case in the matter of prosecution under section 276C and held that any concealment come within the purview of section 271(1)(c) would automatically render the assessee for penalty under section 271(1)(c). Since Division Bench considered the entire matter and dismissed the appeal holding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, therefore, submission made by assessee was not accepted.

Appeal (High Court) - Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Rejection of claim of sundry creditors which were offered for taxation in the course of assessment proceedings -

Issue arose for consideration as to whether Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in sustaining the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the rejection of claim of sundry creditors which were offered for taxation in the course of the assessment proceedings by assessee, 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. Held: The object behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c) read with the Explanations indicates that the section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue. The penalty under that provision is a civil liability. Wilful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as is the case in matter of prosecution under section 276C and held that any concealment come within the purview of section 271(1)(c) would automatically render the assessee for penalty under section 271(1)(c). Assessee's attitude before the officer was inconsistent and even inconsistent stand could not be established with the supportive evidence or materials. Since Division Bench considered the entire matter and dismissed the appeal holding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

Followed:UOI & Ors. v. Dharmendra Textile Processors & Ors. (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 2320 (SC), Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt.CIT & Anr. (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1247 (SC), Shri Kamal Basha v. DCIT 2019 TaxPub(DT) 5223 (Mad-HC) and Kamal Basha v. Dy. CIT 2009 TaxPub(DT) 1663 (Mad-HC).

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : Against the assessee.

A.Y. : 2003-04

IN THE MADRAS HIGH COURT

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT