“concealment of income”

Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

copy of DO. letter from Sh. S. L Srivastava, CIT(OSD). Delhi addressed to CIT. Delhi- XIV' New Delhi disclosing details of concealment of income and resultant evasion of fax of huge amount during the period 2003-2004 onwards and upto F. Y. 2007-2008 by Mrs. Sumana ... welt within the limitation period. It is further highlighted that the complainant in his Tax Evasion Petition has alleged evasion of tax and concealment of income during the period October. 2003 to October, 2007 which is material

Usk Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 27(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

income from other sources, which is highly arbitrary, unjust and baseless. 5. That, the Assessing Officer has not recorded his satisfaction, regarding concealment of income in the Assessment Order passed. 6. That, the explanation given evidence produced, material placed and available on record has not been properly considered and judicially

Radhika Surgical Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Officer after providing the assessee an opportunity to show cause as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not be levied for concealment of income, and considering the same, rejected the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to levy penalty at the rate of 100% of the tax sought ... issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that whether the penalty is for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income was not evident from the notice nor from the penalty order as well. The Ld. AR further

Apex Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 17, New Delhi

In the result, these appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

absence of the clear cut finding as to whether the penalty is being levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income, no penalty can be imposed and thus, the orders of both the learned Assessing Officer as well as the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income

M/S. Apex Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, these appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

absence of the clear cut finding as to whether the penalty is being levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income, no penalty can be imposed and thus, the orders of both the learned Assessing Officer as well as the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nishi Mehra

above than the stated amount, the primary burden of proof is on the Revenue to show that there has been an understatement or concealment of income. It is only when such burden has been discharged, would it be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the DVO. Further ... Likewise in Bajrang Lal (supra), too it was held that “it is settled law that the primary burden to prove understatement or concealment of income is on the Revenue and it is only when such burden is discharged it would be permissible to rely upon the valuation given

CIT vs. Morgan Finvest Pvt Ltd

In the result we answer the substantial question of law in the affirmative,

file any appeal against the non-allowance of the depreciation. 6. The assessing officer thereafter initiated proceedings for the levy of penalty for concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee‟s explanation was called for and after considering the same, the assessing officer, came ... cost of land in the claim of depreciation, though no depreciation is allowable under the Act on the land, had not only concealed its income but also furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. He accordingly imposed the minimum penalty of `14,46,239/- by order dated 30.6.2008. 7. The assessee challenged

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Usha International Ltd

accordingly disallowed the claim in the assessment order passed on 30.09.1982. The disallowance was accepted by the assessee. 4. Penalty proceedings for concealment of income were initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee‟s explanation was called for and after examining the same, the assessing officer ... came to the conclusion that the assessee concealed its income as well as furnished inaccurate particulars thereof, by making a bogus claim of deduction under Section 35CCA in the original return filed on 2012:DHC:6725-DB ITA 1696/2006 Page 3 of 13 28.06.1983. He accordingly imposed the maximum penalty

CIT vs. Khoobsurat Resorts Pvt Ltd

purchaser of the property, meant that the revenue was under a greater burden to show that actual suppression of the value, and concealment of income had taken place. Counsel also relied on the decision of the Madras High Court, in K.R.Palanisamy v. Union of India

CIT vs. Fortis Financial Service

inaccurate, the liability would arise. In Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT [2007] 6 SCC 329#, this court explained the terms "concealment of income" and "furnishing inaccurate particulars". The court went on to hold therein that in order to attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c), mens

The Commissioner of Income Tax II vs. Mahavir Irrigation P.Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

convenience Section 271(1)(c) of the Tax is re-produced as under:- “271 Failure to furnish returns, comply with notice, concealment of income, etc., (1) If the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person ... shown in the balance sheet as on 31.03.1998 under the „trade deposits‟ in the liabilities side. Therefore, it was a clear case of concealment of income and penalty was rightly imposed. 13. As against the above, Mr. Syali, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent, reiterated his arguments which were

Psb Industries India Pvt Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

Thus, the basic contention of Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee was that it was not a case of concealment of income or furnishing wrong particulars. Annual rental value shown on the basis of Lease Agreement which recorded the rent at which premises were ... case, it is seen, on the facts of the case, as to whether the assessee had furnished wrong/false particulars of income or had concealed the income. That is the principle of law laid down by the various judgments cited by both the sides about which there is no quarrel

Astra Housing & Investment P.Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi New Delhi

assessee, mainly on the ground that in the given facts and circumstances, it could not be said to be a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. He also submitted that the primary burden of proof was on the Revenue and that satisfaction ... particulars. The order imposing penalty is quasi-criminal in nature and the burden lies on the Department to establish that the assessee had concealed his income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Findings in assessment proceedings constitute good evidence in the penalty proceeding, but the authorities must consider the matter afresh

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Harsh Talwar

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

assessee and on that basis recorded the finding that the assessee had been able to show that there was no deliberate concealment of income on the part of the assessee and therefore the imposition of penalty was not justified. The detailed order passed by the CIT (A) further indicates that ... explanation nor has he brought may thing on record to show that the appellant’s explanation is false or that the appellant has concealed his income. The AO has not made out a case that the appellant has claimed any fictitious expenses on the basis of any incriminating evidences

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mr.Puneet Sabharwal

Appeal is dismissed

Suraj Devi 328 ITR 604, wherein this Court had held that the primary burden of proof to prove understatement or concealment of income is on the Revenue and it is only when such burden is discharged that it would be permissible to reply upon the valuation given

M/S De vs. Ons Pvt Ltdvs.Commissioner of Income Tax &

assessment order before initiating penalty proceedings. On facts, the ITAT held that the assessee could not be said to have concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. The assessee had itself placed the details of the total bills raised against the Jaipur Municipal Corporation, according to which the total ... however, not declared by the appellant as its income. The non-acceptance of these particulars stated by the AO did not amount to concealment of income. Regarding penalty in respect of the balance outstanding in favour of the sundry creditors, the ITAT observed that the addition was made

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd

this point, we reproduce the relevant provision of Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act:- “271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied ... particulars have been furnished xxx xxx xxx” 14. Mr. Vohra argued that even if the penalty was to be imposed on the alleged concealment of income by the 2010:DHC:4186-DB quantified with reference to the amount of tax sought to be evaded. His explanation was that

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Suraj Devi

Appeal is allowed

suggested undisclosed investment in the aforesaid property . 4. It is settled law that the primary burden of proof to prove under- statement or concealment of income is on the Revenue and it is only 2010:DHC:4009-DB when such burden is discharged that it would be permissible to rely

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Harkaran Das Ved Pal

The appeal is dismissed

surrender by the assessee of its concealed income, the department is still required to prove by independent evidence that the assessee had concealed its income. At the outset, we may point out that the decision in Durga Timber Works (supra) was in the context of Section ... occurring in Section 271 (1) (c) of the said Act but not in Section 158 BFA (2). The consideration of the question of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was not a relevant consideration in the facts of the present case. To that extent, the Tribunal