9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 727 - HC - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - stock valuation - addition made towards the valuation of closing stock of Emerald Cut Stock, on the agreed basis, u/s. 145(3) - Held that - From the order of AO, it seems that because of the pressure, the appellant has surrendered the amount. It is a case of consent and the CIT(A) while considering the decision of Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT) and other decisions the Tribunal was not justified in holding that correct statement of the valuation of the closing stock was not filed alongwith the return. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. 2. Validity of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c). 3. Evaluation of the Tribunal's reliance on the judgment in Mak Data P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-II. 4. Consideration of the appellant's explanation and method of stock valuation. 5. Distinction between assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 271(1)(c) for Concealment of Income: The substantial question of law framed by the court was whether the ITAT acted on total misconception in ignoring the appellant’s explanation and important materials on record while sustaining the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant argued that the valuation of the closing stock was done based on subjective satisfaction and commercial expediency, which was consistent with the method accepted by the revenue in earlier years. The Tribunal, however, reversed the CIT(A)'s decision and upheld the penalty, leading to this appeal. 2. Validity of the Penalty Imposed Under Section 271(1)(c): The CIT(A) had canceled the penalty imposed by the AO, stating that the addition was made on an estimated basis under Section 145(3) and not due to any concrete evidence of concealment. The CIT(A) referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., which held that merely rejecting a claim does not automatically lead to concealment penalty unless inaccurate particulars are filed. The Tribunal's decision to uphold the penalty was challenged on the grounds that the addition was based on estimation and not on any deliberate concealment. 3. Evaluation of the Tribunal's Reliance on the Judgment in Mak Data P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-II: The appellant contended that the Tribunal wrongly applied the judgment in Mak Data P. Ltd. The appellant argued that unlike in Mak Data, where the surrender was due to detected concealment, the addition in this case was voluntary and based on estimation to avoid litigation. The Tribunal's reliance on Mak Data was deemed inappropriate as the circumstances differed significantly. 4. Consideration of the Appellant's Explanation and Method of Stock Valuation: The appellant explained that the valuation of closing stock was based on cost or market price, whichever was less, and that only inferior quality stones remained at the end of the year. This method was consistent with previous years and accepted by the revenue. The AO, however, applied Section 145(3), rejecting the books of accounts due to lack of quality-wise details and varied purchase prices. The appellant agreed to an addition to avoid litigation, which the CIT(A) accepted as a bona fide explanation. 5. Distinction Between Assessment Proceedings and Penalty Proceedings: The CIT(A) emphasized that assessment and penalty proceedings are distinct, requiring different considerations. The penalty was imposed solely based on the assessment order without additional grounds. The CIT(A) referenced judgments, including Shiv Lal Tak and Sangrur Vanaspati Mills, which held that penalties cannot be imposed on estimated additions without concrete evidence of concealment. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in sustaining the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A)'s view, which found the penalty unjustified due to the estimation basis of the addition and lack of concrete evidence of concealment, was upheld. The Tribunal's order was quashed, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.
|
