9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Whether the levy of penalty for disallowance of sundry expenses amounts to concealment of particulars or filing of inaccurate particulars. 3. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. regarding incorrect claims not amounting to concealment. 4. Consideration of penalties on estimated disallowances. 5. Consistency in penalty proceedings for subsequent assessment years. Summary: Issue 1: Confirmation of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) The assessee-company challenged the order of CIT(A) confirming the penalty of Rs. 3,70,984/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, stating that the assessee had submitted inaccurate particulars of income by claiming illegal payments as sundry expenses, which were not allowable u/s 37 of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the penalty was justified as the assessee's claim was not bona fide and was made to reduce taxable income and payable tax. Issue 2: Disallowance of Sundry Expenses The assessee argued that the disallowance of a particular claim does not amount to concealment of particulars or filing of inaccurate particulars. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had debited expenses relating to illegal payments to Dock workers, Union Leaders, and Government Employees, which were not allowable as per the explanation to section 37(1) of the Act. The Tribunal held that the assessee had deliberately debited these expenses to the P & L Account, resulting in inaccurate particulars of income. Issue 3: Applicability of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd., arguing that an incorrect claim does not amount to concealment of particulars. The Tribunal distinguished the facts of the present case from Reliance Petroproducts, noting that in the latter, there was no finding of incorrect or false details supplied by the assessee. In contrast, the present case involved a clear finding of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. Issue 4: Penalties on Estimated Disallowances The assessee contended that penalties should not be levied on estimated disallowances. The Tribunal, however, maintained that the reduction of disallowance to 25% did not negate the blameworthiness of the claim. The Tribunal emphasized that the disallowance related to payments prohibited by the explanation to section 37(1) of the Act, and such payments were not allowable from the moment they were made. Issue 5: Consistency in Penalty Proceedings The assessee argued that in subsequent assessment years, the AO did not initiate penalty proceedings despite making similar additions. The Tribunal dismissed this argument, stating that each assessment year is separate, and the facts and circumstances of each year must be considered independently. Conclusion: The Tribunal confirmed the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 1998-99, 2002-03, and 2003-04, upholding the penalties levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed for all three assessment years.
|
