9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Justification of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Reduction of penalty from 200% to 100% by the Commissioner (Appeals). Analysis: 1. The appellant contested the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the levy. The appellant claimed depreciation on imported cars used for hire, which was disputed by the assessing officer based on specific provisions disallowing such deductions for cars manufactured outside India. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance, stating that there was no evidence to support the claim that the cars were used solely for foreign tourists. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated, alleging the appellant made a bogus claim, leading to inaccurate particulars of income. The assessing officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,53,600 (200% of the tax sought to be evaded), which was reduced to Rs. 2,26,800 (100% of the tax) by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to the appellant's false claim and an attempt to defraud the revenue. 2. The appellant challenged the penalty reduction, emphasizing that all details were disclosed to the assessing officer, and the claim was based on a genuine belief that the cars were used for tourists' benefit. The appellant argued that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings and contended that no conscious concealment was present. The Tribunal observed that the appellant provided full details to support the depreciation claim and explained that the cars were partly used for hire and partly for airport duty for tourists. The Tribunal highlighted that the cars were mainly let out on a monthly basis, not solely for tourists, leading to the conclusion that the penalty was not justified. Consequently, the penalty was deleted, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed based on the totality of the facts presented. In conclusion, the High Court, Bombay, through the ITAT, Mumbai 'I' Bench, ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing their appeal and dismissing the revenue's appeal. The judgment emphasized the necessity of conscious concealment for penalty imposition, distinguishing penalty proceedings from assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found that the appellant's claim was made in good faith, supported by disclosed details, and concluded that the penalty was unwarranted based on the facts presented during the proceedings.
|
