Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 69 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Held that - DR at the time of arguments before us could not point out any factual inaccuracy in the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. Sr. DR also could not substantiate his arguments with cogent reasoning that the assessee had either concealed his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. It is very much evident that the relevant details were very much before the AO at the time of assessment proceedings. ITAT in the case of Sushil Kumar (assessee s son) had dismissed the Revenue s Appeal wherein the Department had challenged deletion of addition of quantum by the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A), in the impugned order, has rightly observed that two sets of views could not have been possible on some such facts, especially because the impugned agreement to sell was signed by both i.e. father and the son. In view of the factual matrix of the case as well as keeping in mind that divergent views cannot be taken on identical facts, we do not find any reason to interfere in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and hence, we dismiss the grounds raised by the Department by upholding the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty in dispute. - decided in favour of assessee
Issues:
- Appeal against deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2005-06. Analysis: 1. The appellant, the Department, challenged the deletion of penalty of ?14,90,000 imposed under section 271(1)(c) by the Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment year 2005-06. The case involved the assessee introducing a capital of ?41 lakhs from the sale of agricultural land, which was later disputed by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to lack of satisfactory evidence. This led to an addition of ?25,15,500 to the income of the assessee. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition and imposed the penalty under section 271(1)(c). However, the assessee appealed, arguing that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Ld. CIT(A) agreed, stating that the assessee did not attempt to show taxable income as non-taxable and did not provide inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was subsequently deleted. 3. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, contending that the penalty deletion was erroneous as the addition made in the assessment order had been confirmed previously. The Department argued that the penalty should be upheld. However, the Tribunal noted that the factual details were presented before the AO during assessment proceedings, and the ITAT had dismissed a similar appeal in the case of the assessee's son. 4. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had not erred in deleting the penalty. It was observed that two different views on identical facts were not permissible, especially since the agreement to sell was signed by both the father and the son. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. This comprehensive analysis highlights the key legal aspects and arguments presented in the judgment regarding the deletion of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2005-06.
|