9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (4) TMI 606 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition made on the foundation of estimated high NP rate of 12% as against shown by the assessee at 10% - Held that - A bare reading to the provisions of section 271(1) (c) of the Act exclude cases like that the present one from its purview. Therefore, there is hardly any need to seek support of judicial verdicts, in such cases. The case laws relied upon by the assessee have been rejected by the CIT(A), in a single stroke, without demonstrating how the same are not applicable to the facts of the assessee s case. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the Revenue Authorities failed, to bring on record any judicial verdict, to support their conclusion. In view of the above facts, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Harigopal Singh vs CIT (2002 (8) TMI 65 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court) whereby it has been categorically held that penalty cannot be levied when income has been estimated. Having regard to the above legal and factual discussion, the order of CIT(A), upholding the levy of penalty, is set aside. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Appeal against order of CIT(A)-II Ludhiana for assessment year 2003-04. 2. Challenge to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act based on estimated income. 3. Interpretation of provisions of section 271(1)(c) regarding concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Consideration of judicial precedents in penalty proceedings. Analysis: Issue 1: Appeal against CIT(A) Order The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A)-II Ludhiana dated 12.6.2009 for the assessment year 2003-04. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee included challenges to the legality of the lower authorities' orders, specifically targeting the penalty imposed without basis or adverse material on the file. Issue 2: Challenge to Penalty Levy The assessee contested the levy of penalty of Rs. 1,17,923 based on the argument that the income had been estimated using a flat rate, making it inappropriate to impose a penalty in such circumstances. The Assessing Officer had imposed the penalty citing the difference in the NP rate applied by the assessee and the estimated rate used for additions. Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 271(1)(c) Provisions The debate centered around the interpretation of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, with the assessee arguing that penalty cannot be levied solely based on estimated income additions. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, emphasizing the deliberate non-maintenance of books of account by the assessee as an attempt to conceal income, citing the decision in Union of India vs Dharmendra Textiles Processors case. Issue 4: Consideration of Judicial Precedents The assessee cited various judicial decisions to support the contention that penalty should not be levied in cases of estimated income additions. The CIT(A) rejected these citations and upheld the penalty. However, the appellate tribunal noted the failure of revenue authorities to provide supporting judicial precedents for their conclusion, ultimately setting aside the CIT(A) order and allowing the assessee's appeal. In conclusion, the tribunal emphasized the discretionary nature of penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c), stressing the need for a strict interpretation of penal provisions. The tribunal found that the penalty was levied without proper application of mind to the facts of the case, and overturned the CIT(A) decision, highlighting that penalties should not be lightly invoked on vague grounds, especially in cases of estimated income.
|
