SRI SACHINADRA NATH KAYAL,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WD-23(1), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata dated 09.07.2015 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11. Penalty levied by Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 30.04.2013.

Sole effective issue raised by assessee is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirmed the addition made by Assessing Officer for ₹10,98,667/- on account of penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the LTCG income was not offered to tax due to lack of knowledge of income tax and amount of capital gains was duly disclosed in the balance sheet. Therefore, it cannot be said the income was concealed deliberately. However, Ld. CIT(A) disregarded the contention of assessee and confirmed the order of AO by observing as under:- “6. I have considered the facts of the case and the appellant’s submissions. I find that the undisputed factual position is that the appellant had not declared any long term capital gains on amount of sale of land but had disclosed the sales proceeds as increased in capital in his balance sheet along with the corresponding investment. The appellant accepted the addition in the assessment and paid the demand raised. He has prayed for deletion of the penalty on the ground of ignorance of the person preparing the computation of income and payment of the entire demand. In my view, the appellant’s explanation is very vague and far-fetched. It is very difficult to accept that the appellant omitted to disclose the huge amount of long-term capital gain only on account of ignorance. The appellant’s explanation cannot be accepted to be satisfactory or bona-fide. It was observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, while holding that penalty has to be imposed where the appellant is not able to show that the mistake/omission is bonafide, in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd.[2010] 191 Taxman 179 (Delhi)/[2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/[2010] 2233 CTR 465 (Delhi)as follows: ‘The Court cannot overlook the fact that only a small percentage of the Income-tax Returns are picked up for scrutiny. If the assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law but is also wholly without any basis and the explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bona fide, it would be difficult to say that he would still not be liable to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. If we take the view that a claim which is wholly untenable in law and has absolutely no foundation on which it could be made, the assessee would not be liable to imposition of penalty, even if he was not acting bona fide while making a claim of this nature, that would give Sh. Sachindra Nath Kayal Vs. ITO Wd-23(1), Hgl Page 3 licence to unscrupulous assessee to make wholly untenable and unsustainable claims without there being any basis for making them, in the hope that their return would not be picked up for scrutiny and they would be assessed on the basis of self-assessment under section 143(1) of the Act and even if their case is selected for scrutiny, they can get away merely by paying the tax, which in any case, was payable by them. The consequence would be that the persons who make claims of this nature, actuated by a mala fide intention to evade tax otherwise payable by them would get away without paying the ax legally payable by them, if their case are not picked up for scrutiny. This would take away the deterrent effect which these penalty provisions in the Act have.’ 7. Considering the above observations of the Hon'ble Court and the failure of the appellant to discharge the onus put on him by explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) to establish that the explanation given by him in relation to the addition is bona fide, it has to be held that the Assessing Officer rightly imposed penalty of Rs.10,98,667/- on the appellant. The fact that the appellant paid the additional tax payable on the enhanced income does not provide him immunity from computation of the amount of tax sought to be evaded in terms of explanation 4 to section271(1)(c).The penalty f Rs.10,98,667/- imposed by the Assessing Officer is confirmed. “ Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee came in second appeal before us.

Before us Ld. AR for the assessee filed paper book which is running pages from 1 to 30 and he reiterated the same arguments that were made before Ld. CIT(A) whereas Ld. DR vehemently relied on the order of Authorities Below.