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.
ITAT allowed increased exemption of Rs. 25 lakhs u/s 10(10A) to non-government employees in view of CBDT retrospective notification. In…
PCIT has revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 over the cases irrespective of the fact that the relevant assessment was completed physical…
Appellate court interfering with Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal findings on assessment of disability and loss of earning capacity must undertake…
When period of delay is not very huge and involve huge monetary liability on the assessee, a lenient approach should…
Ratification by EoGM of the company can not give legality of the diversion of the fund raised by preferential issue.…
CBIC prescribes procedures for return of export cargo from international waters due to closure of the Strait of Hormuz where…