For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

In order to attract Clause (c) of Section 271(1) of the Act, it is necessary that there must be concealment by the assessee of the particulars of his income or if he furnishes inaccurate particulars of such income. What is to be seen is whether the assessee in the presentcasehad concealed his income as held by the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal. He had not maintained any accounts and he filed his return of income on estimate basis. The Assessing Officer did not agree with the estimate of the assessee and brought his income to tax by increasing it to Rs. 2,07,500. This, too, was on estimate basis. The Tribunal agreed that the income of the assessee had to be assessed on an estimate of the turnover but was of the view that the estimate as made by the Assessing Officer was highly excessive and it fixed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,50,000 for the year under appeal. It is, thus, clear that there was a difference of opinion as regards the estimate of the income of the assessee. Since the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal adopted different estimates in assessing the income of the assessee, it cannot be said that the assessee had "concealed the particulars of his income" so as to attract Clause (c) of Section 271(1) of the Act. There is not even an iota of evidence on the record to show that the income of the assessee during the year under appeal was more than the income returned by him. Additions in his income were made, as already observed, on estimate basis and that by itself does not lead to the conclusion that the assessee either concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. There has to be a positive act of concealment on his part and the onus to prove this is on the Department. We are also of the considered view that the Tribunal grossly erred in law in relying on Explanation 1(B) to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act to raise a presumption against the assessee. The assessee had justified his estimate of income on the basis of household expenditure and other investments made during the relevant period. It is not thecaseof the Revenue that he had, in fact, incurred expenditure in excess of what he had stated. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the explanation furnished by the assessee had not been substantiated or that he had failed to prove that such explanation was not bona fide.
5. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the question posed in the earlier part of the order is answered in the negative holding that the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted to cases where the income of an assessee is assessed on estimate basis and additions are made therein on that basis.” In thecaseon hand the Assessing Officer has only estimated the Gross Profit on the alleged non-genuine purchases without there being any conclusive proof of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. Thus, we do not observe any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act levied by the Assessing Officer. Grounds raised by the revenue are rejected.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Sec. 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961— Penalty — Revenue filed appeal against the order of CIT (Appeals) dated 03.12.2018 for the assessment year 2010-2011. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was
justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s--271(1)(c) without appreciating the fact that there was a definite finding in the assessment order in respect of bogus purchases and of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income relating to purchases resulting into concealment of income.That the assessee an individual engaged in the business of “Trade of hardware and electrical items” and filed return of income on 12.10.2010. Assessment was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act and reassessment was completed on 23.02.2015 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act determining the income at Rs.8,05,340/-. While completing the reassessment the Assessing Officer treated the purchases of Rs.5,22,838/- made from various dealers as non-genuine on the basis of the information received from Sales Tax Department, Mumbai that assessee has received accommodation entries from those parties’ without making any purchases but made purchases only in gray market. The Assessing Officer treated such purchases from various parties as non-genuine as the assessee could not produce the parties and also could not establish the movement of goods. Further, the notices issued to the parties u/s. 133(6) of the Act were also returned unserved. Thus, the Assessing Officer estimated the profit element from the non-genuine purchases at 12.5% and brought to tax. Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings and levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act stating that the assessee has y furnished inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealed its true and correct income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the penalty. Against this order of the Ld.CIT(A), revenue filed appeal.
Held thatthe Assessing Officer has only estimated the Gross Profit on the alleged non-genuine purchases without there being any conclusive proof of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. Thus, we do not observe any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act levied by the Assessing Officer. Grounds raised by the revenue are rejected. Appeal of the revenue was dismissed ---ITO vs. SHRI JIGNESH AMRUTLAL SHAH.[2020] 23 ITCD Online 35 (MUM)