9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal by Revenue against cancellation of penalty under s. 273(2)(aa) of IT Act, 1961 by CIT(A). - Assessment year 1985-86, assessee's revised income estimate for advance tax considered inaccurate. - Penalty imposed by ITO, assessee appealed citing lack of opportunity and pending depreciation claim. - CIT(A) upheld assessee's contentions, cancelled penalty, Revenue objected. - Disparity between assessed income and estimated income for advance tax, burden of proof on assessee. - Tribunal upheld CIT(A) decision, citing honest estimate by assessee and accepted appeal on depreciation claim. Analysis: The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the cancellation of a penalty under section 273(2)(aa) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The dispute arose in the assessment year 1985-86 when the assessee, a company engaged in tea manufacturing and industrial gas trading, submitted an inaccurate income estimate for advance tax. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) imposed a penalty of Rs. 90,451, representing 25% of the tax shortfall, due to the discrepancy in the estimated and assessed income. The assessee appealed, claiming lack of opportunity and pending appeal on a disallowed depreciation claim. The CIT(A) sided with the assessee, stating that the penalty was unjustified as the ITO failed to provide adequate opportunity before imposing it. Moreover, the CIT(A) found that the assessee's returned income, after considering the pending depreciation claim, was accurately estimated. The Revenue objected, arguing that the disparity between the estimated and assessed income warranted an explanation from the assessee. The Revenue relied on a Calcutta High Court decision to support its stance. The Tribunal carefully analyzed the contentions and evidence presented. It noted that under section 273(2)(aa), a penalty is levied if the assessee knowingly submits an inaccurate income estimate for advance tax. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee's estimate was honest, as supported by the Tribunal's decision on the depreciation claim. The burden of proof, as per case law, lies on the Revenue to show that the estimate was knowingly false. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the assessee's estimate was reasonable and based on available information at the time of submission. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s cancellation of the penalty. The judgment underscores the importance of a genuine and reasonable income estimate for advance tax purposes, placing the burden of proof on the Revenue to establish any deliberate inaccuracies by the assessee.
|
