Anish Kumar V. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda (Punjab)

ITA/226/2013

AI Insights

Anish Kumar, the appellant, challenged the orders related to the penalty imposed on him for incorrect reporting of the cost of acquisition of land in his income tax returns. The dispute originated from the sale of two properties, where discrepancies were found in the reported purchase years and acquisition costs. The Assessing Officer initially imposed a 300% penalty, which was later reduced to 100% by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant argued that there was no intention to evade tax, and the errors were inadvertent. However, the court upheld the lower authorities' findings, emphasizing that the appellant's failure to provide a cogent explanation for the discrepancies indicated an intent to evade tax.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 804951 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: PANKAJ JAIN
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Cost of acquisition; Income Tax; Penalty; Tax Evasion
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"Income Tax Appeal No.226 of 2013 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Income Tax Appeal No.226 of 2013 Date of Decision: 11.10.2013 Anish Kumar ..Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda (Punjab) ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON. Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The appellant-assessee challenges order dated 11.6.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar order dated 24.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda, and the assessment order. Counsel for the appellant submits that penalty though reduced by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal from 300% to 100%, is not leviable as no finding has been recorded that the appellant intended to evade tax or intentionally over-stated the cost of acquisition of land. It is further submitted that an inadvertent error, relating to cost of acquisition of the assets, has been wrongly held to be sufficient to invite penalty. The burden to prove intention to evade tax has not been discharged by the revenue, thereby rendering the penalty illegal and void. We have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the Varinder Kumar 2013.10.23 14:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Income Tax Appeal No.226 of 2013 - 2 - impugned orders and find no reason to hold that any substantial question of law, much less questions framed by the appellant, arise for adjudication. The appellant filed a return of income disclosing sale of land. Upon scrutiny of the return under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), it is discovered that the assessee had sold two properties on 30.12.2005 for a consideration of Rs.1,26,04,166/-, allegedly, purchased in 1991 and 1996. After considering the documents on record, the cost of acquisition, vis-a-vis, the appellant, was found to be Rs.70,078/-. The Assessing Officer also found that properties had been purchased on 29.5.1998 and not in the year 1991-92 as claimed by the assessee. The assessee was unable to tender any explanation, thereby inviting additional tax as well as a penalty of 300%. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed an appeal filed by the assessee. Aggrieved by these orders, the appellant filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal. The findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer were affirmed but the penalty has been reduced from 300% to 100% by taking a lenient view of the matter. The findings recorded by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer, that the appellant furnished incorrect particulars with intent to evade tax, do not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law. The absence of any clear and cogent explanation with respect to wrong value of assets as well as incorrect date of purchase, is sufficient to raise an inference that the appellant Varinder Kumar 2013.10.23 14:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Income Tax Appeal No.226 of 2013 - 3 - intended to evade tax and, therefore, faulted. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the appeal is dismissed. ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) JUDGE ( DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON ) 11.10.2013 JUDGE VK Varinder Kumar 2013.10.23 14:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh "