9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1990-91 based on unpaid luxury tax and cash credits.
For asst. yr. 1989-90: The Assessing Officer added unpaid luxury tax to the assessed loss, resulting in a net loss. Penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) for the unpaid luxury tax. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, leading to further appeals before the Tribunal. For asst. yr. 1990-91: Excess luxury tax collected and cash credits were added to the declared loss. Penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) for unpaid luxury tax and cash credits. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalties, leading to further appeals before the Tribunal. Assessee's Submission: Assessee believed the luxury tax difference did not represent income and was disclosed in auditor's reports. Cash credits were from directors and did not pertain to the year under consideration. Department's Submission: Luxury tax difference constituted income, and non-filing of appeal indicated admission. Similar argument made for cash credits. Relied on relevant case law. Tribunal's Decision: Documents disclosed luxury tax differences, no concealment found. Cash credits from directors not proven as concealed income. Expln. 4 to section 271(1)(c) debated, with conflicting judicial opinions. Tribunal favored assessee's view, citing relevant precedents. Conclusion: Tribunal held no penalty under section 271(1)(c) applicable when the finally assessed amount is a loss. Canceled penalties for both years based on this interpretation. Mentioned the need for strict construction of penalty provisions and followed decisions favoring the assessee. Highlighted the ambiguity in taxing provisions and the need to interpret in favor of the assessee, especially in penalty cases.
|
