9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeals by different assessees based on identical facts - Common ground raised - Penalty levied under s. 271(1)(c) of IT Act, 1961, and under s. 18(1)(c) of WT Act, 1957. Analysis: The judgment involves multiple appeals by different assessees with a common ground based on identical facts. The primary issue revolves around the penalty levied under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, and under s. 18(1)(c) of the WT Act, 1957. The controversy arose from a search conducted under s. 132 of the IT Act in the case of a group, leading to assessment proceedings and subsequent penalty imposition by the Assessing Officer (AO). In the case under consideration (ITA No. 4155/2003), the assessee initially declared a total income of Rs. 77,954, but the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 6,35,836 following a notice under s. 148 of the Act. The penalty was imposed by the AO under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, and under s. 18(1)(c) of the WT Act, 1957. The penalty amounts varied across different appeals filed by the assessees. The authorized representative of the assessees contended that there was no concealment of income/wealth as the income had been voluntarily offered for taxation before the Settlement Commission in other cases not detected during assessment proceedings. It was argued that the disclosure of income was voluntary and made before any detection by tax authorities, citing relevant portions of the Settlement Commission's order and decisions in support of the contention. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative supported the penalty imposition, alleging concealment of income from the Mayabhai Family Trust by the assessees. The Settlement Commission had waived penalties in cases where beneficiaries approached them, but penalties were not waived for the beneficiaries under consideration as their applications were not accepted by the Commission. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and perusing the record, found that the concealment penalties imposed on the assessees were not justified. The Tribunal observed that the penalties were levied only on the 20% share of income/wealth from the Mayabhai Family Trust by the assessees under consideration. It was noted that the Settlement Commission had waived penalties for the trust and three beneficiaries receiving the same share. The Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for imposing concealment penalties on the remaining two beneficiaries for their 20% share from the trust, as it was not a case of deliberate concealment but rather a lack of knowledge about the exact amount of income share. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed all the appeals of the assessees, canceling the penalties imposed by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A).
|
