9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 1554 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Addition u/s 68 - assessee has booked cash sales of Rs. 3 Crores in the month of September,2006 to different parties - HELD THAT - Merely because addition on merit have been confirmed by itself is no ground to sustain the penalty automatically. It is an admitted fact that cash sales of Rs. 3.12 Cr were out of the total sales of Rs. 94.54 Cr. The assessee maintained complete books of account and the accounts are audited. The assessee produced books of account, purchase bills, sales bills and stock register before the authorities below and disclosed complete facts with regard to the sales made to different parties. Therefore, nothing was concealed to the revenue department in filing of the return as well as at the time of assessment framed by the AO. The sale bills were supported by sales tax paid challans and sales tax return filed by the assessee with Commercial Tax Department of Una and as well as shown by the assessee in the books of account have been accepted by the sales tax authorities (VAT authorities). Thus, the sales made by the assessee including the cash sales have been accepted by the sales tax authorities. The authorities below dis-believed the explanation of the assessee with regard to cash sales made to different parties because their complete details are not noted in the bills. It was also noted that since no complete particulars of the purchasers are mentioned in the sale bills, therefore, cash sales are not subjected to verification. This was the sole reason for making the addition as well as levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against the assessee - As in the case of R.B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand 1969 (7) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and similarly M. Durai Raj 1971 (3) TMI 11 - KERALA HIGH COURT held that the books of account cannot be rejected if in cash sales, names and address of the purchasers are not mentioned. There is no need to mention name and address in the cash sales. These judgements support the version of the assessee that mere dis-believing the explanation of the assessee would not be enough to levy the penalty under section 271(1)(c) The facts and circumstances of the case shall have to be considered because levy of the penalty is discretionary in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills 2009 (5) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT held that on every demand, penalty is not automatic. We are of the view that even if addition on quantum have been sustained, however assessee has been able to make out an arguable and debatable case to prove that penalty need not be imposed in this case. We, therefore, do not subscribe to the views of the authorities below in levying and sustaining the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Genuineness of cash sales and unexplained cash credits. Detailed Analysis: 1. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act: The primary issue in this case is the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee firm, engaged in manufacturing and sale of essential oil, declared 'nil' income after claiming a deduction under Section 80IC of the Act. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed cash sales of Rs. 3 crores in September 2006. The AO concluded that the assessee had introduced unaccounted cash in its books under the guise of cash sales, leading to an addition of Rs. 3.12 crores under Section 68 of the Act and initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee challenged the penalty order, arguing that the cash sales were duly disclosed and accounted for, backed by sales bills, sales tax paid challans, and Sales Tax Returns. The assessee contended that the AO failed to prove the source of undisclosed income and relied on suspicion and assumptions. The assessee also cited the acceptance of its appeal by the High Court as evidence that the addition was debatable, referencing the Supreme Court decision in Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158. 2. Genuineness of Cash Sales and Unexplained Cash Credits: The CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT Chandigarh Bench upheld the AO's findings, noting that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the cash sales. The CIT(Appeals) found that the factory's isolated location made cash sales improbable and noted that the VAT Department's acceptance of sales was irrelevant as it was concerned only with revenue collection. The CIT(Appeals) concluded that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming bogus cash sales of Rs. 3.12 crores, thus confirming the penalty. The assessee's counsel reiterated that the cash sales were minor compared to total sales and that the issue was debatable, citing the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT Vs Nayan Builders & Developers 368 ITR 722. The counsel argued that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings and that additions in quantum proceedings cannot justify penalty imposition, referencing Durga Kamal Rice Mills V CIT 265 ITR 25 and Ratan Lal Aggarwal 317 ITR 336. The counsel emphasized that the assessee maintained audited accounts, declared all sales, and paid sales tax, with the sales tax assessment completed. The DR supported the authorities' orders, arguing that the cash sales in September 2006 raised doubts, leading to the conclusion that unaccounted cash was booked as sales. The DR cited the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Others V Dharmendra Textiles Processors & others 306 ITR 277, emphasizing strict liability for concealment under Section 271(1)(c). Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal found that the penalty was imposed solely because the cash sales were booked in September 2006 and the addition was confirmed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee maintained complete books of account, which were audited, and disclosed all sales, supported by sales tax challans and returns accepted by the VAT authorities. The Tribunal held that merely disbelieving the assessee's explanation was insufficient for penalty imposition, as the explanation was not proven false, and no evidence of income concealment or inaccurate particulars was presented. The Tribunal referenced the Bombay High Court's decision in R.B. Jessa Ram Fateh Chand V CIT 75 ITR 33 and the Kerala High Court's decision in M. Durai Raj V CIT 83 ITR 484, which held that books of account cannot be rejected for not mentioning purchasers' names and addresses in cash sales. The Tribunal concluded that the facts and circumstances did not indicate furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing income. The Tribunal emphasized that penalty is discretionary and not automatic, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills 2009-TIOL-63-SC. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the authorities' orders and deleted the penalty, clarifying that the findings were relevant only to the penalty matter and had no bearing on the quantum matter pending before the High Court. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced on 25th August 2015.
|
