9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to the levy of penalty under section 273(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Assessment year 1978-79 - discrepancy in advance tax payment. 3. Claim under section 35B - difference in estimated and assessed figures. 4. Justification for penalty imposition by the Income-tax Officer. 5. Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against penalty imposition. 6. Decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the penalty. 7. Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal challenging the penalty. 8. Arguments and considerations by the Appellate Tribunal. 9. Bona fide belief of the assessee regarding the claim under section 35B. 10. Reversal of the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and cancellation of the penalty. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal challenged the penalty imposed under section 273(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 89,476, with the alternative plea for reduction to the minimum penalty. 2. The issue arose from the assessment year 1978-79, concerning a discrepancy in the advance tax payment by the company, where the company filed an estimate showing nil liability on account of advance tax due to a claim adjustment under section 35B. 3. The discrepancy in the claim under section 35B between the estimate and the assessed figures led to the initiation of penalty proceedings by the Income-tax Officer, justifying the penalty imposition based on the substantial difference in the figures. 4. The Income-tax Officer imposed the penalty due to the company's alleged incorrect claim under section 35B, reducing its tax liability, highlighting the company's previous claims and the rejection of such claims in earlier assessment years. 5. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) reiterated the company's stance on the claim under section 35B, citing various Tribunal judgments and the absence of mala fide intention in filing the estimate. 6. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the company's pleas, emphasizing the company's awareness of previous rejections of similar claims and concluding that the higher deduction under section 35B was a deliberate attempt to reduce tax liabilities. 7. The Appellate Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides, noting the influence of past claim rejections on the penalty imposition but also highlighted the timing of relevant judgments after the estimate filing date. 8. The Tribunal reversed the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing the company's bona fide belief in the claim under section 35B at the time of filing the estimate, ultimately leading to the cancellation of the imposed penalty. 9. The Tribunal found no evidence to suggest the company sought to withhold legitimate tax dues, as the company genuinely believed in the claim's validity, supported by relevant Tribunal judgments. 10. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the penalty imposition, canceling the penalty of Rs. 89,476, and allowed the company's appeal, based on the company's bona fide belief in the claim under section 35B.
|
