9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of penalty cancellation by CIT(A) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Validity of initiation of penalty proceedings by the Assessing Officer. 3. Merits of the penalty imposed. Summary: Issue 1: Justification of Penalty Cancellation by CIT(A) u/s 271(1)(c) The primary issue in this appeal is whether the CIT(A) was justified in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 1,51,040 imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee had filed a return of income declaring Rs. 47,204, which was scrutinized by the Assessing Officer who noticed a credit of Rs. 4 lakhs in the assessee's capital account. The assessee explained that the amount was received from his late father. However, the Assessing Officer did not find this explanation satisfactory and added Rs. 4 lakhs to the income, which was upheld by the Tribunal. The CIT(A) cancelled the penalty on the grounds that the Assessing Officer had not recorded valid satisfaction in the assessment order and on merits. Issue 2: Validity of Initiation of Penalty Proceedings by the Assessing Officer The Revenue argued that mere indication in the assessment order is sufficient for recording satisfaction. However, the assessee contended that no satisfaction was recorded in the assessment order served on him. The Tribunal noted that recording of satisfaction in the assessment order is a mandatory requirement for initiating penalty proceedings. The assessment order must show an application of mind by the Assessing Officer. In this case, the copy of the assessment order served on the assessee did not mention the initiation of penalty proceedings, indicating that such proceedings were initiated subsequently. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty proceedings were not validly initiated, rendering the penalty order without jurisdiction, illegal, and bad in law. Issue 3: Merits of the Penalty Imposed Even on merits, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) rightly cancelled the penalty. The addition of Rs. 4 lakhs was upheld by the Tribunal, but it is settled law that assessment and penalty proceedings are separate and independent. The findings in the assessment order are not conclusive for the purpose of levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Tribunal cited various judgments supporting the view that mere disallowance of a claim or addition of income does not automatically lead to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Assessing Officer must establish that the explanation furnished by the assessee is false or not bona fide. In this case, the addition was made merely because the explanation regarding the source of Rs. 4 lakhs was not found satisfactory, without any evidence of mala fide intent to evade tax. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not exigible even on merits. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) cancelling the penalty and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue.
|
