9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for assessment year 1989-90. Analysis: The appellant contested the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings due to discrepancies in the income declared and assessed. The appellant explained that the drafts were purchased on behalf of cloth dealers who lacked bank accounts in the city. The appellant provided evidence and statements from the parties for whom the drafts were purchased, asserting the bona fide nature of the transactions. The appellant argued that the penalty should not be imposed solely based on the addition made by the Assessing Officer without considering the bona fide explanation provided. The appellant relied on various legal precedents to support the argument that penalty cannot be automatically imposed in such cases. Regarding the trading addition, the appellant contended that the Assessing Officer estimated sales and gross profit, leading to the addition. The appellant argued that penalties cannot be imposed on estimated additions and cited legal cases to support this position. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the penalty, prompting the appellant to appeal. The appellant challenged the penalty on the grounds that the Assessing Officer did not specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, as required under section 274. The appellant also argued that the Assessing Officer did not invoke the explanation, which is essential for imposing the penalty under section 271(1)(c). Upon review, the Tribunal emphasized that penalty under section 271(1)(c) should only be imposed if there is concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal referred to legal precedents to support the view that mere additions to income do not automatically warrant penalties. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer invoked Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) but emphasized that penalty can only be imposed if the explanation provided is not only unsubstantiated but also lacks bona fide intent. The Tribunal examined the facts presented by the appellant and concluded that the explanations provided were bona fide, thereby rendering the penalty unjustified. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, canceling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year in question. The decision was based on the finding that the appellant's explanations were bona fide and that penalties should not be imposed on estimated additions without clear evidence of concealment or inaccurate particulars of income.
|
