Case Law Details

Case Name : IGL Gemstones Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number : I.T.A. No. 2955/Mum/2013
Date of Judgement/Order : 25/05/2015
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All ITAT (4343) ITAT Mumbai (1441)

Prima-facie, according to the provisions of section 194C r.w. definition given of “work” under the explanation to section 194C, the case of the assessee has to be accepted that assessee could be under bonafide belief for non-deduction of tax from the type of payments upon which it has been held that assessee is liable to deduct tax at source. Mere acceptance by the assessee of the addition does not make entitle the department to levy concealment penalty. In this case, is no allegation can be imposed upon the assessee to say that did not furnish all the particulars or it has disclosed inaccurate particulars so as to say that assessee is liable for concealment penalty. Keeping in view the entirety of facts and also reasonable belief of the assessee that it is not entitled for deduction of tax on the payments made to him by it as the same were excluded from the definition of “work” by the Explanation to section 194C, we are of the opinion that levy of concealment penalty in the present case is not justified and deserves to be deleted.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Income Tax

Posted Under

Category : Income Tax (25347)
Type : Judiciary (10118)
Tags : ITAT Judgments (4523) Section 194C (124) section 271(1)(c) (306)

0 responses to “Mere acceptance by assessee of addition not entitles department to levy concealment penalty”

  1. Nem Singh says:

    To under stand “furnishing inaccurate particulars and or concealment of particulars income we should read the land mark judgment K. C. Builders.

    The word “concealment” inherently carried with it the element of mens rea. Therefore, the mere fact that some figure or some particulars have been disclosed by itself, even if takes out the case from the purview of non-disclosure, it cannot by itself take out the case from the purview of furnishing inaccurate particulars. Mere omission from the return of an item of receipt does neither amount to concealment nor deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income unless and until there is some evidence to show or some circumstances found from which it can be gathered that the omission was attributable to an intention or desire on the part of the assessee to hide or conceal the income so as to avoid the imposition of tax thereon. In order that a penalty under Section 271(1) (iii) may be imposed, it has to be proved that the assessee has consciously made the concealment or furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. Where the additions made in the assessment order, on the basis of which penalty for concealment was levied, are deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and, therefore, in such a case no such penalty can survive and the same is liable to be cancelled as in the instant case. Ordinarily, penalty cannot stand if the assessment itself is set aside. Where an order of assessment or reassessment on the basis of which penalty has been levied on the assessee has itself been finally set aside or cancelled by the Tribunal or otherwise, the penalty cannot stand by itself and the same is liable to be cancelled as in the instant case ordered by the Tribunal and later cancellation of penalty by the authorities. Section 276C of the Act deals with wilful attempt to evade tax, etc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *