Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Ravinder Kumar Agarwal, appealed against a penalty of Rs. 1,72,800 levied under Section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year 2013-14. The penalty was imposed due to an unexplained investment of Rs. 1,01,743 in a partnership firm, M/s Satti Real Estate, which the lower authorities deemed as furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealing income.
Held
The tribunal found no merit in the revenue's argument, stating that merely failing to prove the source of an unexplained investment, despite providing voluminous evidence, does not automatically fall under the limbs of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing income for Section 271(1)(c) penalty, citing CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. The impugned penalty was therefore deleted.
Key Issues
The key legal issue was whether the assessee's failure to prove the source of an unexplained investment constitutes furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
Section 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14, arises against the CIT(A)-3, Noida’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1079253888(1) dated 04.08.2025, in proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
We note at the outset that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance is directed against both the lower authorities’ action levying section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.1,72,800/- in the Assessing Officer’s order dated 09.03.2021 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
Ravinder Kumar Agarwal 4. That being the case, learned departmental representative vehemently argues that the assessee all along had failed to prove source of it’s investment amounting to Rs.1,01,743/- made in the partnership firm “M/s Satti Real Estate” which made both the lower authorities to treat the said default as amounting to both furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealing particulars of his taxable income.
We find no merit in the Revenue’s foregoing vehement submissions. This is for the precise reason that once it has come on record that the impugned penalty involves quantum addition of unexplained investment which the assessee could not plead and prove despite having led voluminous detailed evidence, such an instance could not held to be covered under either of the foregoing two limbs attracting u/s 271(1)(c) penalty (supra) in light of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). We thus delete the impugned penalty in very terms.