2018 (5) TMI 1927 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) - addition made u/s. 69 on account of unproved sundry creditors - flaw in recording satisfaction - HELD THAT - In the present case we are of considered view that there was ambiguity in the mind of Assessing Officer while recording satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was not clear of the charge u/s. 271(1)(c) that has to be invoked for levy of penalty and hence mentioned both the limbs i.e. concealment of income as well furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However the penalty has been levied only on the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income . The manner in which satisfaction has been recorded clearly falls short of legal requirement and hence the penalty proceedings and penalty order is vitiated. Thus the order levying penalty has to be set aside. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2004-05.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2004-05. The case involved the assessee, engaged in manufacturing Refined Oil, who had creditors amounting to a significant sum. The Assessing Officer disallowed a substantial portion of these creditors as unproved, leading to additions under section 68 of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal subsequently reduced the additions. The penalty was levied based on the amount confirmed by the Tribunal. The Revenue challenged the deletion of penalty by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the present appeal.

2. The Department argued that the assessee had created bogus creditors to suppress income, leading to inaccurate particulars of income. The Department contended that the Assessing Officer's detailed investigation revealed the modus operandi of the assessee in creating these bogus creditors. The Department emphasized that penalty should be upheld, as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in relying on previous tribunal decisions. On the other hand, the assessee's representative defended the deletion of penalty, highlighting that the additions were ad hoc and penalty cannot be levied on estimated amounts.

3. The Tribunal examined the case and observed that the partial addition of creditors was based on estimations, which is not a valid ground for levying penalty under section 271(1)(c). Additionally, a discrepancy was noted in the recording of satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings, as the Assessing Officer mentioned both limbs of section 271(1)(c) but levied penalty only for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that penalty must be imposed only on the ground for which it was initiated. Due to the ambiguity in the Assessing Officer's satisfaction, the penalty proceedings and order were deemed unsustainable, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

4. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that penalty must align with the grounds on which it was initiated, and any ambiguity in the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer can render the penalty order invalid. The case highlighted the importance of clarity and adherence to legal requirements in penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2004-05, emphasizing the necessity for proper alignment between the grounds for initiating penalty and the grounds for imposing the penalty.