2013 (12) TMI 1107 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Unaccounted production - Held that - Normally the penalty cannot be levied on estimated income alone The assessee has not credited the additions of Rs.2,09,94,965/- and Rs.23,53,160/- in case of Shree Om Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., and SRJ Peety Steels Pvt. Ltd., respectively in their respective books of accounts - Sale of two days having been found as result of search Assessee has paid tax to that extent The assessee have to pay penalty on these two days sale However on income estimated for the whole year penalty cannot be levied Partly allowed in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of penalty order based on unaccounted production found during search action.
2. Restoration of Assessing Officer's order and vacation of CIT(A)'s order.

Issue 1: Deletion of Penalty Order Based on Unaccounted Production:
The case involved two appeals by the Revenue concerning the deletion of penalty orders related to unaccounted production found during a search action. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty based on various observations, including inconsistencies in electricity consumption, the location of seized papers, lack of evidence on suppression of sales, and the estimation of suppressed turnover. The CIT(A) concluded that penalties cannot be levied on estimated income and emphasized the need for stronger evidence for penalty imposition. The CIT(A) also highlighted the lack of conclusive proof for the additions made, citing a similar case decided in favor of the assessee by the ITAT. The CIT(A) directed the cancellation of penalties, considering the debatable nature of the additions and the absence of evidence supporting the imposition of penalties.

Issue 2: Restoration of Assessing Officer's Order:
The Revenue contended that the penalty order was justified based on evidence of unaccounted production discovered during the search action. The additions were confirmed concerning sales on specific dates, which were extrapolated for the entire year. The Revenue argued that penalties should be upheld as the basis for the additions was not a sound one for penalty imposition. On the other hand, the Authorized Representative argued that penalties based on estimated additions were not justified, emphasizing that penalty imposition should not be automatic based on quantum additions alone. The ITAT reviewed the submissions and material on record, noting the Assessing Officer's basis for the additions related to suppressed production and sales. The ITAT upheld the penalty corresponding to the sales found during the search, despite the dispute over the penalty on the estimated turnover for the whole year. The ITAT partially allowed the appeals, directing the Assessing Officer to impose penalties corresponding to the sales found during the search action.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of penalty deletion based on unaccounted production and the restoration of the Assessing Officer's order concerning suppressed sales. The CIT(A) emphasized the need for concrete evidence for penalty imposition on estimated income, leading to the deletion of penalties. However, the ITAT upheld penalties corresponding to specific sales discovered during the search, despite the ongoing dispute over penalties related to estimated turnover.