2018 (4) TMI 13 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that - Addition on account of disallowance of commission payment has already been deleted, therefore, the penalty levied on disallowance of commission payment would not survive. Disallowance consists of foreign travel expenses - Admittedly, the disallowance of foreign travel expenses was made on adhoc basis. It is settled law that no penalty is leviable on the disallowance/addition made on mere estimation basis. Thus the penalty levied by Assessing Officer is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal and upholding of penalty by CIT (Appeals)
2. Lack of satisfaction indication for penalty levy in the assessment order
3. Failure to specify penalty clause in the notice
4. Requirement of fresh satisfaction for reassessment due to ITAT order
5. Failure to follow relevant case laws
6. Non-adherence to Karnataka High Court order
7. Distinction between penalty and assessment proceedings
8. Submission of information and orders of DRT and High Court

Analysis:

1. The appeal challenged the CIT (Appeals) order upholding the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. The appellant argued that the CIT (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering key factual aspects. The main contention was the lack of satisfaction indication in the assessment order regarding the penalty levy and the failure to specify whether the penalty was for inaccurate particulars or concealment, as required by law.

2. The appellant further contended that the CIT (Appeals) did not follow relevant case laws, including judgments like Prabhat Solvent Extraction Industries Vs. ACIT, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S. V. Angidi Chettiar, and Ranchhodbhai Haribhai Jadav Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Moreover, the appellant argued that the CIT (Appeals) failed to adhere to a Karnataka High Court order in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, which was followed by the jurisdictional Tribunal in various orders.

3. The distinction between penalty and assessment proceedings was highlighted by the appellant, emphasizing that penalty proceedings are separate and that the appellant had provided orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and High Court to show that the counter parties were not interrelated and were in liquidation. The appellant argued that there was no concealment of income but only inaccurate particulars due to the inability to produce the counter parties during the initial hearing.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer, particularly on commission payments and foreign travel expenses. The Tribunal noted that the disallowance on commission payments was deleted in a previous order, rendering the penalty levied on it invalid. Additionally, the disallowance of foreign travel expenses was made on an adhoc basis, and it is established that no penalty is leviable on mere estimation basis.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, considering that the main addition leading to the penalty had been deleted, and the penalty on the disallowance of commission payment was not sustainable. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant did not argue on other legal grounds of appeal, which were deemed academic in light of the relief granted. The penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was consequently deleted, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.

← Previous Next →