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

----------- Similar Posts: -----------
Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

In absence of mala fide intention bank should not be treated as assessee in default

In absence of mala fide intention bank should not be treated as assessee in default for late deduction and deposit…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

Whether bank account was fraudulently open in the name of assessee is question of fact

Whether bank account was fraudulently open in the name of assessee is question of fact. High Court declined to entertain…

3 days ago
  • Concurrent Audit

SBI Concurrent Auditor Empanelment of Chartered Accountant Firms 2024-25. Last date 18.05.2024

SBI Concurrent Auditor Empanelment of Chartered Accountant Firms for FY 2024-25 SBI Concurrent Auditor Empanelment of CA Firms for FY…

3 days ago
  • Companies Act

Change in the constitution of Appellate Authority for CAs CSs and Cost Accountants

Change in the constitution of Appellate Authority for CAs CSs and Cost Accountants In 2015, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs…

4 days ago
  • VAT

Trade Tax refund withheld beyond stipulated period & adjusted from demand unjustified – SC

Trade Tax Department was unjustified in retaining refund beyond stipulated period and adjusting it against default notices issued subsequently. In…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

Notice issued u/s 143(2) prior to filing of return of income assessee is invalid

Notice issued u/s 143(2) prior to filing of return of income by the assessee was invalid. Before filing ITR provisions…

5 days ago