Jawahar Lal Jain v. The DCIT, Central Circle-I, Chandigarh
[Citation -2016-LL-0920-42]

Citation 2016-LL-0920-42
Appellant Name Jawahar Lal Jain
Respondent Name The DCIT, Central Circle-I, Chandigarh
Court ITAT-Chandigarh
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 20/09/2016
Assessment Year 2001-02
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags concealment of income • agricultural income • bogus claim • evade tax
Bot Summary: The Assessing Officer in order to 2 verify the genuineness of the agriculture income, directed the assessee to furnish the following information : i) Ownership paper of the land ii) Proof that agriculture activities were done on the said land iii) Copy of Jamabandi and Ferd Girdawari of the land iv) Detail, location and size of the land 2(i) Despite giving number of opportunities, assessee failed to produce the evidence to support his claim of agricultural income. The Assessing Officer held that assessee has tried to conceal the income and furnished the inaccurate particulars of 3 income under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied the penalty vide separate orders. CIT(Appeals) considering explanation of the assessee, dismissed all the appeals of the assessee. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before authorities below and submitted that written submissions of the assessee filed 5 at page 65 of the Paper Book have not been considered in proper perspective. The assessee claimed the earning of the agricultural income, therefore onus upon assessee was there to establish earning of the agricultural income. The assessee has failed 6 to produce jamabandi and girdawari before the authorities below and as per material collected by the Assessing Officer, the land of the assessee was found to be not under cultivation. Assessee failed to contradict the findings of fact recorded by the authorities below, therefore in the absence of specific material in favour of the assessee on record, we do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal of the assessee.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 868 to 870/CHD/2016 A.Y.: 2001-02 to 2003-04 Shri Jawahar Lal Jain, Vs DCIT, SCF 18-19, Sector 22-D, Central Circle-I, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. PAN: ABHPJ7613E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal Respondent by : Shri S.K.Mittal,DR Date of Hearing : 24.08.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 20.09.2016 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JM All appeals by assessee are directed against common order of ld. CIT(Appeals)-III, Gurgaon dated 27.05.2016 for assessment year 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 challenging levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act. 2. Briefly facts of case are that during course of assessment proceedings, on perusal of return of income, it was seen that during years under consideration, assessee had shown agricultural income. Assessing Officer in order to 2 verify genuineness of agriculture income, directed assessee to furnish following information : i) Ownership paper of land ii) Proof that agriculture activities were done on said land iii) Copy of Jamabandi and Ferd Girdawari of land iv) Detail, location and size of land 2(i) Despite giving number of opportunities, assessee failed to produce evidence to support his claim of agricultural income. Assessing Officer, accordingly, made additions on account of 'income from other sources' . additions were confirmed by ld. CIT(Appeals) and appeal of assessee have been dismissed by ITAT vide order dated 10.10.2014. Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of Act and opportunity was provided to assessee to explain matter. assessee reiterated stand taken in quantum proceedings. Assessing Officer noted that assessee failed to substantiate claim of agriculture income without support of any evidence during quantum as well as appellate proceedings. Assessing Officer, therefore, held that assessee has tried to conceal income and furnished inaccurate particulars of 3 income under section 271(1)(c) of Act and levied penalty vide separate orders. penalty orders were challenged before ld. CIT(Appeals) and written submission of assessee is reproduced in appellate order in which assessee briefly explained that agriculture income is exempt. quantum and penalty proceedings are different. assessee received sale proceeds of agriculture produce from arhtias through account payee cheques which were regularly deposited in bank account. assessee filed copies of J-forms and invoices of arhtias during assessment proceedings. Due to long time gap between date of sale of agriculture produce and date of calling of information in assessment proceedings, assessee could not produce girdawari for said lands. It was, therefore, submitted that penalty may not be imposed. 3. ld. CIT(Appeals) considering explanation of assessee, dismissed all appeals of assessee. findings of ld. CIT(Appeals) in paras 8 to 10 are reproduced as under : 8. appellant has claimed to have earned agricultural income in all years under consideration. However neither during assessment stage nor appellant stage, appellant has been able to substantiate same. As appellant had not filed any proof in support of agricultural income supposed to have been earned. AO held that this income is taxable under head 'Income from other Sources'. order of AO has been confirmed by CIT(A) and Hon'ble IT AT. 4 contention of appellant with regard to evidence produced in support of agricultural income have not found favour at level of assessment, appeal and Hon'ble ITAT as appellant could hot conclusively prove that he had earned agricultural income. judicial pronouncement relied upon is not applicable to case of appellant's as cogent and reliable evidence were not produced by appellant at any stage. It is settled position in appellant's case that he had riot earned any agricultural income during years under consideration but had shown his other income amounting Rs. 62,514/- in A.Y. 2001-02, Rs. 89,954/- in A.Y. 2002-03 and Rs. 90,859/- in A.Y. 2003-04 as agricultural income in order to evade tax on same. appellant has therefore furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and is liable to penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of Act. Reliance is placed on judicial pronouncement hereunder. (i) A.M. Shah & Co. Vs. CIT 238 ITR 415 (Guj) Hon'ble Court has held that:- "The obligation is not only to disclose particulars of income but to disclose them correctly and completely. If while disclosing particulars of income in return he puts them under wrong head, he can be said to be furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Where appellant while stating income under particular head, works out income chargeable to tax after making deductions which are falsely made, such process would make particulars of income inaccurate, therefore, any concealment or inaccuracy in particular of income in return occurring at any stage upto and inclusive of ultimate stage of working out of total income would attract penalty provision of section 271(1)(c) . In view of above 'discussion, penalty(s) imposed by AO for AY 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 is confirmed. 10. As result, appeal of appellant is not allowed in all years under consideration i.e. 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04. 4. We have heard ld. Representatives of both parties. ld. counsel for assessee reiterated submissions made before authorities below and submitted that written submissions of assessee filed 5 at page 65 of Paper Book have not been considered in proper perspective. On other hand, ld. DR relied upon orders of authorities below and submitted that penalty is strictly civil liability and relied upon decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of UOI Vs Dharmendra Textile & Processors 306 ITR 277 and CIT Vs Atul Mohan Bindal 317 ITR 1. 5. On consideration of rival submissions, we do not find any merit in all appeals of assessee. It is undisputed fact that assessee claimed agriculture income in return of income, however, assessee failed to substantiate abovesaid claim and did not produce any evidences in support of earning of agricultural income. It is also admitted fact that assessee failed to produce jamabandi and girdawari before authorities below and as per material collected by Assessing Officer, land of assessee was found to be not under cultivation. These findings of fact have reached finality because ITAT Chandigarh Bench dismissed appeal of assessee on this issue in ITA Nos. 205 to 208 of 2014 for assessment years 2001-02 to 2004-05 vide order dated 10.10.2014. relevant findings of Tribunal in para 8 are reproduced as under : 8. On consideration of rival submissions, we do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal of assessee. assessee claimed earning of agricultural income, therefore onus upon assessee was there to establish earning of agricultural income. assessee has failed 6 to produce jamabandi and girdawari before authorities below and as per material collected by Assessing Officer, land of assessee was found to be not under cultivation. Thus, assessee failed to prove basic requirements of proving that agricultural activities were done in said land. Khasra girdawari are relevant documents to prove cultivation of land which are always in power and possession of owner of land, therefore, non production of same before Assessing Officer/ld. CIT(Appeals) clearly prove that assessee has failed to prove its case to satisfaction of authorities below of earning of agricultural income. Even before us, assessee failed to contradict findings of fact recorded by authorities below, therefore in absence of specific material in favour of assessee on record, we do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal of assessee. These are, accordingly dismissed in all appeals under consideration. 6. assessee in penalty proceedings also did not produce any evidence before authorities below to their satisfaction to prove earning of any agricultural income. It may also be noted here that in all these cases, assessment orders were passed under section 143(3) read with Section 153A of Income Tax Act because search under section 132 of Act was initiated in Nikamal Baburam & Sons group of Chandigarh on 27.10.2006. assessee was one of persons covered under section 132A, therefore, assessments under section 143(3) read with Section 153A were passed on 26.12.2008. It is, therefore, clear that despite assessee was aware of fact that he has 7 not earned any agriculture income, made false and bogus claim in later proceedings under section 153A of Act. It is well settled law that findings given in assessment proceedings are relevant and have probative value. In this case, assessee produces no fresh evidence or presents any additional or fresh circumstances in penalty proceedings, therefore, assessee would be deemed to have failed to discharge onus placed on him and levy of penalty would be justified. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs Harparshad and Company Ltd. 328 ITR 53 held as under : Held, that reasons given by Tribunal for quashing penalty proceedings were irrelevant, not germane to issue and Tribunal had lost sight of aspects which had been conclusively established in quantum proceedings. Tribunal had failed to take note of fact that part of claim as commission was allowed to assessee not because R had rendered any services but because J had rendered services for which it was paid 1 per cent of commission by R out of 3 per cent, received by her. As far as commission to R was concerned, it was accepted by Tribunal in quantum proceedings that she did not render any services at all. assessee had failed to offer any explanation in respect of addition of Rs. 1,83,078 and it could be deemed to have concealed particulars of income or furnishes inaccurate particulars thereof, by virtue of this explanation. Tribunal was not justified in deleting penalty imposed by Income-tax Officer under section 271(l)(c) of Act. findings given in assessment proceedings are relevant and have probative value. Where assessee produces no fresh evidence or presents any additional or fresh circumstance in penalty 8 proceedings, he would be deemed to have failed to discharge onus placed on him and levy of penalty could be justified. Even if there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, but on basis thereof claim which is made is ex facie bogus, it may still attract penalty provision. Explanations appended to section 271(l)(c) of Act entirely indicate element of strict liability on assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing return. object behind enactment of section 271(l)(c) read with Explanations indicate that section been enacted to provide for remedy for loss of revenue. penalty under that provision is civil liability. Wilful concealment is not essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as is case in matter of prosecution under section 276C of Act. 7. In this case, even bogus claim was considered to have attracted penalty proceedings. ld. counsel for assessee also submitted that Assessing Officer is not clear as to for which offence, penalty have been levied. Assessing Officer in assessment order after concluding this issue has mentioned that assessee has failed to disclose true and full particulars of income and thus concealed income earned by him and initiated penalty proceedings accordingly. Assessing Officer in penalty order has levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) on finding it is fit case of penalty. ld. CIT(Appeals) held that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and liable to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Act. Therefore, orders of authorities below are very clear as regards levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of 9 Act. It may also be noted here that since assessee made bogus claim of agriculture income in order to defraud revenue after search was conducted, therefore, decision of Delhi High Court in case of Har Parshad & Co. Ltd. (supra) clearly apply to facts of case. written submission of assessee have been considered by authorities below. 8. Considering totality of facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in all appeals of assessee, same are, accordingly, dismissed. 9. In result, all appeals of assessee are dismissed. Order Pronounced in Open Court. Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 20th Sept.,2016. Poonam Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT,DR Assistant Registrar, ITAT/CHD Jawahar Lal Jain v. DCIT, Central Circle-I, Chandigarh
Report Error