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

Distinction between religious & charitable purposes is determined by institution’s primary or dominant object

The distinction between religious and charitable purposes is determined by institution's primary or dominant object and not merely by presence…

20 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Fit case to issue notice u/s 148 – Relevancy of material & application of mind to objections important

For determination of what constitutes a fit case to issue notice u/s 148, rule of relevancy of the material and…

1 day ago
  • Income Tax

AO is under an obligation to assign reasons for rejecting explanation of the assessee

AO is under an obligation to duly consider the explanation furnished by the assessee and assign reasons for rejecting the…

2 days ago
  • Excise/Custom

CBIC issues SoP for clearance of imported goods through Foreign Post Offices

CBIC issues SoP for clearance of imported goods through Foreign Post Offices under Postal Import Regulations, 2025.  Standard Operating Procedure…

2 days ago
  • civil-law

Sale deed executed with full knowledge of only part consideration paid, not void – SC

Sale deed executed with full knowledge of only part consideration paid, cannot be rendered void or inoperative merely for non…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

No fault in serving notice to last known address when PAN data was not updated – ITAT

No fault in serving notice u/s 148 to last known address when assessee had not updated change of address in…

2 days ago