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

Non- payment of cost imposed can’t trigger automatic confirmation of an invalid exparte assessment.

ITAT power to pass such orders "as it thinks fit" implies a judicial discretion to be exercised within the parameters…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Non-deduction of TDS does not make transaction as unexplained in the hands of deductee – ITAT

Mere non-deduction of TDS by the deductor on a transaction does not change the character of the transaction to make…

4 days ago
  • ICAI

Last date to submit MEF 2026-27 extended to 09.09.2026

ICAI has extended the last date to online submit Multipurpose Empanelment Form (MEF)- 2026-27 from 29th August 2026 to 9th…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

Validity of demand u/s 156 for default u/s 115-O, if assessment order u/s 143(3) has Nil demand

Can a demand notice be issued u/s 156 for non-payment of Dividend tax u/s 115-O, when as per assessment order…

6 days ago
  • Income Tax

Issue already examined and adjudicated by CIT(Appeals), can’t be reopened on same set of facts

The issue already examined and adjudicated by the quasi-judicial authority, i.e., CIT(Appeals), cannot be reopened on the same set of…

7 days ago
  • Income Tax

TDS can’t be denied for non deposit of tax deducted by the deductor – High Court

One TDS is deducted, credit has to follow, failure of deductor to deposit the amount to the credit of the…

1 week ago