9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Sustenance of penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90. Analysis: 1. The appellant contested penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer for concealing income particulars related to interest claims on loans, resulting in penalties of Rs. 1,80,956 and Rs. 2,04,907 for the respective years. The CIT(A) upheld the penalties, stating the loans were not accepted as genuine, justifying the penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The appellant challenged the penalties by arguing that no tax was payable as returns declared losses and assessed incomes were below taxable limits. Citing precedents, the appellant sought cancellation of the penalty orders. The Department countered, asserting the applicability of Explanation 4 post-amendment, making the assessee liable for penalties even with reduced losses or incomes below taxable limits. 3. The Tribunal noted the absence of information on the assessments' outcomes regarding the loans' genuineness. Despite the summary confirmation by the CIT(A), the Tribunal relied on the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision, affirming that penalties are not applicable when no tax is payable due to lack of taxable income, as clarified in the case of Prithipal Singh & Co., upheld by the Apex Court. 4. Addressing the Department's argument on Explanation 4, the Tribunal emphasized that penalty imposition is contingent on tax evasion, which necessitates taxable income. Citing legal definitions and precedents, the Tribunal concurred with the appellant's stance that penalties were not legally exigible for the assessment years in question. Consequently, the penalty orders were revoked, and the appeals were allowed.
|
