9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of Explanation 1(B) of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in relation to cancellation of penalty despite sustained trading addition.
Summary: The case involved a dispute regarding the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for an assessment year. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings due to a variance between the income shown by the assessee and the income assessed. Despite the Tribunal sustaining a trading addition, it cancelled the penalty, leading to a reference to the High Court for opinion. The key contention was whether the Tribunal erred in cancelling the penalty considering the Explanation 1(B) appended to section 271(1)(c) during the relevant assessment year. The Revenue argued that failure to substantiate an explanation would deem concealment, while the assessee's counsel contended that the explanation was bona fide, citing relevant case law. The Tribunal's decision was based on the proviso to the Explanation, which was later deleted by an amendment. The Tribunal's order highlighted the absence of a finding of concealment and the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the trading addition. The High Court, in line with previous judgments and the Tribunal's findings, concluded that the penalty was unjustified as inaccurate particulars of income were not proven, rendering the reference incompetent. The judgment emphasized that section 271(1)(c) can only be applied if inaccurate particulars are furnished, which was not established in this case. The High Court rejected the reference, citing precedents and the Tribunal's factual findings as conclusive, thereby upholding the cancellation of the penalty. This judgment provides clarity on the application of penalty provisions under the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the importance of establishing deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars to warrant penalties.
|
