Case Law Details
Shri Babuji Jacob Vs ITO (Madras High Court)
Admittedly, all the amounts were received by the assessee through banking channels and he had mentioned about the same in his return of income. The only mistake done by the assessee was to treat both the lands as agricultural lands. Once the notice under Section 143(3) of the Act was issued, the assessee was able to convince the Assessing Officer that the lands in Pudhupakkam Village were to be treated as agricultural lands. But, he was unable to convince the Assessing Officer that the lands in Egattur Village were agricultural lands, which were treated to be a capital asset. Therefore, there was no material available with the Assessing Officer to allege concealment of particulars of income.
The Assessing Officer, while imposing penalty vide order dated 28.9.2016, held that but for the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, the cash deposits would not have come to light and therefore, rendered a finding that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars.
This finding of the Assessing Officer is incorrect because while completing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, there was no allegation against the assessee as to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. But, the Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation offered by the assessee and made certain additions, which will not automatically result in interpreting the same as furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Further, we find that there is no specific finding as regards the concealment against the assessee because, on facts, it has been established before the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act that all transactions were through banking channels. Hence, the argument of Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue that both limbs of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted has to necessarily fall. Hence, we hold that there is inherent defect in the notice dated 30.3.2016 issued under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, as it will vitiate the entire proceedings.
In the instant case, the assessee offered an explanation and we find the explanation to be cogent because all deposits were made through banking channels and out of two properties sold, the Assessing Officer accepted the assessee’s stand that one of the properties was an agricultural land. Hence, we find that the burden cast upon the assessee to offer an explanation stands fulfilled. Consequently, the burden now shifts to the Revenue to establish the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or both. If the Revenue does not agree with the explanation offered by the assessee as in the instant case, then the onus is on the Revenue to prove that there was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We find this aspect to be completely absent in the instant case. Therefore, we also find the imposition of penalty to be unjustified.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
