Income Tax

Non-disclosure of bank account due to over-sight-Concealment penalty u/s 271(1)(c) upheld

Non-disclosure of bank account due to over-sight-Concealment penalty u/s 271(1)(c) upheld as no credible explanation given for omission & source of deposits – ITAT

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 1268 (2017) (05) ITAT

Assessment Year: 2009-10
Date/Month of Judgment/Order: May, 2017

Brief facts of the case:
The assessee was a Doctor. During the course of the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), it was discovered that assessee was having a saving bank account with a private bank which was not disclosed in the books of account. The said bank account had cash deposits of Rs. 38,41,403/- and interest of Rs.1,15,570/- and other deposits of Rs.2,30,130/-.

The explanation of the assessee was that the non-disclosure of the said bank account was due to over-sight. The Assessing Officer (‘AO’) added the total credits in the bank account amounting to Rs. 41,87,108/- to the total income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer also held the assessee as guilty of concealment of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and imposed a penalty.

Tje penalty was upheld by the CIT(A), against which assessee was in appeal before the Tribunal.

Observatons made by the Tribunal:
It was observed that undisputed fact was that the assessee had not disclosed the bank account in the books of account. Apart therefrom, there had been no credible explanation furnished by the assessee before the lower authorities with regard to such non-disclosure of the bank account as well as the source of the credits appearing in such account.

Held:
In the absence of any credible material to the contrary, The ITAT confirm the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
 

Download Full Judgment

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

AO not justified in rejecting registered valuer’s report without reference to DVO – ITAT

AO not justified in rejecting registered valuer’s report without making a reference to the DVO - ITAT In a recent…

5 days ago
  • FCRA

FCRA specifies list of 105 purposes to be selected for which registration is applied

FCRA specifies list of purposes to be selected for which registration is applied.  The Ministry of Home Affairs has notified…

1 week ago
  • Income Tax

Withholding tax u/s 40(a)(i) not required on cost-to-cost reimbursement made to parent company

Assessee was not liable to withhold tax at source u/s 40(a)(i) on cost-to-cost reimbursement made to parent company In a…

1 week ago
  • Government

Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App not disproportionate – Delhi High Court

Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App under section 69A of IT Act 2000 is not disproportionate - Delhi HC…

2 weeks ago
  • Income Tax

High Court explains the meaning of term ‘enterprise’ appearing in section 80IA

High Court explains the meaning of term ‘enterprise’ appearing in section 80IA to means a project or an undertaking owned…

2 weeks ago
  • Income Tax

Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash not owner who came up to own it

Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash and the real owner had come forward owning the cash…

2 weeks ago