9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (12) TMI 339 - AT - Income TaxPenalty order u/s 13 of the Interest Tax Act, 1974 Concealment of particulars of chargeable interest or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of chargeable interest Held that - As concluding from the facts of the case assessee had shown receipt of in the P&L account on account of interest others but this receipt was not included in the computation of chargeable interest. Following the decision in his own case by Delhi High Court held that on account of interest other, was added to the chargeable interest of the assessee. In favour of revenue Recording in the assessment order u/s 8(2) - Satisfaction as warranted by Sec. 13 for initiating the penalty proceedings - Held that - As concluding from the facts of the case AO has not recorded satisfaction in course of assessment proceedings and simply initiated penalty. Following the decision in case of Ram Commercial Enterprises (1998 (10) TMI 13 - DELHI HIGH COURT) held that merely because penalty proceedings had been initiated it cannot be concluded that satisfaction as warranted u/s 13 was arrived at and Diwan Enterprises (1998 (11) TMI 27 - DELHI HIGH COURT) held that unless requisite satisfaction was recorded in the proceedings under the Act, the jurisdiction to initiate the penalty proceedings could not have been exercised. Thus, the entire penalty proceedings were without jurisdiction. In favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of penalty orders under Section 13 of the Interest Tax Act, 1974. 2. Recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer under Section 8(2) of the Interest Tax Act, 1974. 3. Applicability of Section 271(1B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the Interest Tax Act, 1974. 4. Full disclosure and bona fide explanation by the assessee. 5. Upholding of penalty by the CIT (A). Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Penalty Orders under Section 13 of the Interest Tax Act, 1974: The assessee contended that the penalty orders passed under Section 13 of the Interest Tax Act, 1974 by the Assessing Officer were "bad in law and void ab initio." The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had already decided against the assessee for assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98, confirming that bill discounting charges should be treated as interest. The Tribunal followed the High Court's decision and dismissed ground nos. 1, 4, and 5 for the assessment year 1998-99. 2. Recording of Satisfaction by the Assessing Officer under Section 8(2) of the Interest Tax Act, 1974: The core issue for consideration was whether the Assessing Officer had recorded proper satisfaction as warranted under Section 13 of the Interest Tax Act for initiating penalty proceedings. The Tribunal referred to multiple decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which emphasized that the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction during the assessment proceedings regarding the concealment of particulars of chargeable interest or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such interest. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer merely initiated penalty proceedings without recording the necessary satisfaction, thus rendering the penalty proceedings without jurisdiction. 3. Applicability of Section 271(1B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the Interest Tax Act, 1974: The Tribunal examined whether Section 271(1B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which deems satisfaction recorded if the assessment order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings, applied to the Interest Tax Act. The Tribunal noted that no analogous provision had been inserted in the Interest Tax Act, and Section 271 was not made applicable by Section 21 of the Interest Tax Act. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the lack of a similar provision in the Interest Tax Act meant that the mere initiation of penalty proceedings without recorded satisfaction was insufficient for imposing a penalty. 4. Full Disclosure and Bona Fide Explanation by the Assessee: The assessee argued that they had made full and complete disclosure and provided a bona fide explanation for their claims. The Tribunal, however, relied on the High Court's observation that there was no genuine difference of opinion on whether bill discounting charges should be treated as interest. The High Court had found the assessee's reliance on Circular No. 647 entirely misconceived and held that the penalty was justified. 5. Upholding of Penalty by the CIT (A): The CIT (A) had upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal, however, found that the CIT (A) erred in holding that the provisions of Section 13 of the Interest Tax Act were pari materia with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT (A) did not properly consider the requirement of recording satisfaction and the lack of applicability of Section 271(1B) to the Interest Tax Act. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the cross objections for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 and partly allowed the appeal for the assessment year 1998-99. It held that the penalty proceedings were without jurisdiction due to the failure of the Assessing Officer to record the necessary satisfaction during the assessment proceedings.
|
