9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Revenue's appeal based on CBDT Instruction No. 1979. 2. Legality of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Revenue's Appeal Based on CBDT Instruction No. 1979: The learned Counsel for the assessee raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal filed by the Revenue, citing Instruction No. 1979 issued by the CBDT, which mandates that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1.00 Lakh. The Counsel argued that these instructions are binding on all Revenue Authorities and referenced the ITAT Chandigarh Bench's decision in ITO v. Dharinvir and the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. Camco Colour Co., which supported the binding nature of such instructions to reduce litigation. Conversely, the learned DR contended that Instruction No. 1979 is an administrative order for internal guidance and does not override statutory provisions of the Income-tax Act, which provide the right to file appeals. The DR also cited decisions from the Allahabad High Court and the ITAT Delhi 'B' Bench, which supported the maintainability of appeals irrespective of such instructions. Upon review, it was concluded that Instruction No. 1979 is not issued under the statutory power of section 119 of the Income-tax Act but is an administrative instruction. Therefore, it does not have statutory force and cannot override the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal held that the instruction is not legally enforceable through the Court of law and rejected the preliminary objection raised by the assessee. 2. Legality of the Penalty Imposed Under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act: The effective ground of appeal concerned the cancellation of a penalty of Rs. 16,800 imposed under section 271(1)(c). The penalty was based on the assessee firm's failure to substantiate the explanation for deposits made by partners, which were claimed to be from agricultural income but lacked sufficient evidence. The CIT(A) had deleted the penalty, reasoning that the firm had explained the source of the capital introduced by the partners. The CIT(A) found that the penalty was imposed merely because the Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation, which is not sufficient ground for penalty. The Tribunal reviewed the case and noted that under Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c), penalty for concealment can only be imposed if both conditions are met: failure to substantiate the explanation and failure to prove its bona fide. In this case, while the assessee failed to substantiate the explanation, the bona fide nature of the explanation was not doubted by the Department. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order canceling the penalty. Conclusion: The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee became infructuous and was also dismissed.
|
