Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: dharmendra textile processor in Kalipada Saha, Hooghly vs Ito, Ward-24(3),Hooghly. , Hooghly on 12 June, 2024Matching Fragments
(i) MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com 448 (SC),
(ii) B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co Vs. CIT [116 Taxman 842]
(iii) Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2007] 295 ITR 244.
9. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the determination whether the penalty is leviable or not depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and cannot be brought into any straight jacket formula. The moot point for determination by the Ld. CIT(A) was whether any explanation for the additions made in the assessment order was given or not, and if any such explanation was given, then whether it was correct, substantiated and bona fide. Para 8.3 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the penalty imposed is extracted as under:
except for stating that it was due to a bona fide mistake on his part without substantiating the assertion in any manner. The appellant's contention that he had suo moto revised the return declaring the higher income of Rs. 8,00,075 and paid due taxes thereon and that, thus, he had no intention of any concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not found tenable in view of the fact that the assessee had not filed any such revised return on his own motion. It was only after notice under section 148 was issued by the A.O. that the appellant declared higher income in the return filed in response to the said notice. Had the assessment not been reopened by issue of the notice u/s 148, the suppressed income, in all probability, would have remained unassessed. Even otherwise too, wilful concealment is not a necessary condition for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs Dharmendra Textiles Processors case (supra). The case laws relied upon by the appellant in his submissions are not applicable to the instant case being distinguishable on the facts. Therefore, in view of the facts & circumstances of the case discussed above and the fact that no credible explanation has been filed by the appellant attracting Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c), I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the A.O. levying penalty of Rs.1,30,581 u/s 271(1)(c) in this case and, thus, hereby uphold the same."
10. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, as the assessee had suppressed income from the suppressed sale in the return of income originally filed but for the issue of the notice u/s. 148, there was no occasion for the assessee to declare the suppressed income. It is relevant to mention that receipts were suppressed not only in AY 2010-11 but also in AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 and AY 2013-14 and, therefore, the same cannot be said to be unintentional or due to any bona fide mistake. Hon'ble Supreme Court have held in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processor (supra) that the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is the civil liability for which wilful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the provisions, unlike in the proceeding u/s. 276C of the Act. Had the notice u/s. 148 not been issued in all these four years, such income would not have been offered to tax. The assessee failed to give any justification for not showing the income and the income declared in the return filed in response to the notice u/s. 148 cannot be said to be voluntarily disclosed but the assessee was compelled to disclose the same as the information was in the knowledge of the AO. Hon'ble Supreme Court have also given ITA Nos. 1188 to 1191/Kol/2023 Kalipada Saha AYs: 2010-11 to 2013-14.