Anish Kumar v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bathinda (Punjab

Income Tax Appeal No.226 of 2013 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. Income Tax Appeal No.226 of 2013Date 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 dated11.6.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsarorder dated 24.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Bathinda, and the assessment order. Counsel for the appellant submits that penalty thoughreduced by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal from 300% to 100%, isnot leviable as no finding has been recorded that the appellantintended to evade tax or intentionally over-stated the cost ofacquisition of land. It is further submitted that an inadvertent error,relating to cost of acquisition of the assets, has been wrongly held tobe sufficient to invite penalty. The burden to prove intention to evadetax has not been discharged by the revenue, thereby rendering thepenalty illegal and void. We have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the Income Tax Appeal No.226 of 2013 - 2 - impugned orders and find no reason to hold that any substantialquestion of law, much less questions framed by the appellant, arisefor adjudication. The appellant filed a return of income disclosingsale of land. Upon scrutiny of the return under Section 143(3) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), it isdiscovered that the assessee had sold two properties on 30.12.2005for a consideration of Rs.1,26,04,166/-, allegedly, purchased in 1991and 1996. After considering the documents on record, the cost ofacquisition, vis-a-vis, the appellant, was found to be Rs.70,078/-. TheAssessing Officer also found that properties had been purchased on29.5.1998 and not in the year 1991-92 as claimed by the assessee.The assessee was unable to tender any explanation, thereby invitingadditional tax as well as a penalty of 300%. The Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) dismissed an appeal filed by the assessee.Aggrieved by these orders, the appellant filed an appeal before theIncome Tax Appellant Tribunal. The findings recorded by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officerwere 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 theAssessing Officer, that the appellant furnished incorrect particularswith intent to evade tax, do not suffer from any error of jurisdiction orof law. The absence of any clear and cogent explanation withrespect to wrong value of assets as well as incorrect date ofpurchase, is sufficient to raise an inference that the appellantVarinder Kumar2013.10.23 14:21I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentHigh 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 11.10.2013VK ( DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON ) JUDGE