9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 1324 - AT - Income TaxPenalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) - Furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of particulars of income - Held that - Assessing Officer in assessment order and in penalty order we find that penalty was initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in respect of various unaccounted purchases and sales and on account of disallowances whereas the satisfaction recorded in penalty order reveals that assessee had concealed the particulars of income to the extent of 20, 41, 931/-. Furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of particulars of income are the two limbs of Section 271(1)(c) which is apparent from the language of the section itself wherein the two limbs has been differentiated by the use of word or . The penalty proceedings had been commenced against the assessee on a particular footing viz. concealing of particular of income but the final conclusion for levying the penalty was based on a different footing together viz. on the footing of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Under the circumstances it could not be said that the assessee had been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the order imposing the penalty was passed. The very basis for penalty proceedings against the assessee initiated by the Income-tax Officer disappeared when the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that there was no suppression of income of the assessee. The conclusion of the Tribunal that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to impose a penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for concealment was correct - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Binding nature of Tribunal findings in quantum appeal on penalty appeal. 3. Independent findings by AO and CIT(A) regarding deliberate design by the assessee. 4. Consideration of statutory records in penalty imposition. 5. Errors in calculation of additions by AO. 6. Ignoring sales by other parties and denial of telescopic benefit in penalty imposition. 7. General legality and factual correctness of the order by AO and CIT(A). Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Penalty Order under Section 271(1)(c): The assessee challenged the penalty order on the grounds that the reasons for initiating penalty proceedings differed from those recorded in the penalty order. The AR argued that the AO recorded satisfaction for issuing a penalty notice for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, while the penalty order stated that the assessee had concealed particulars of income. The AR relied on the Supreme Court judgment in T. Ashok Pai v. CIT and other case laws to argue that the penalty order is void ab initio if the AO does not clearly state the specific limb under which the penalty is initiated and levied. 2. Binding Nature of Tribunal Findings in Quantum Appeal on Penalty Appeal: The assessee contended that the findings of the Tribunal in the quantum appeal are not binding in the penalty appeal. The focus in penalty proceedings should be on the bonafides of the assessee's conduct rather than the taxability of the income. 3. Independent Findings by AO and CIT(A) Regarding Deliberate Design: The assessee argued that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) provided any independent findings to conclude that there was a deliberate design on the part of the assessee to conceal income. 4. Consideration of Statutory Records in Penalty Imposition: The assessee claimed that the AO and CIT(A) ignored the fact that all entries leading to additions in quantum assessment were reflected in statutory records, which were accepted by the CIT(A) in the quantum appeal, demonstrating the bonafides of the assessee's conduct. 5. Errors in Calculation of Additions by AO: The assessee pointed out several mistakes made by the AO in calculating additions, such as incorrect estimation of bag sizes and the number of empty bags, leading to erroneous results and unjust imposition of penalty. 6. Ignoring Sales by Other Parties and Denial of Telescopic Benefit: The assessee argued that the AO and CIT(A) wrongly imposed a penalty on sales made by other parties and did not provide any telescopic benefit of purchase cost, rendering the penalty imposition legally unsound. 7. General Legality and Factual Correctness of the Order by AO and CIT(A): The assessee contended that the orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) were bad in law and on facts, requesting the Tribunal to modify the order or grant consequential relief. Tribunal's Findings: On Legality of the Penalty Order: The Tribunal focused on the legal issue raised in Ground No. 1. It noted the discrepancy between the reasons for initiating penalty proceedings (furnishing inaccurate particulars of income) and the reasons recorded in the penalty order (concealment of income). The Tribunal cited various judgments, including those from the Karnataka High Court and the Amritsar Bench, emphasizing that the AO must clearly specify the limb under which the penalty is initiated and levied. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty order was void ab initio due to this discrepancy. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal on Ground No. 1, finding the penalty order void ab initio. Consequently, other grounds of appeal were not adjudicated as they were considered of academic interest only. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in open court on January 22, 2016.
|
