9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal by revenue challenging cancellation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act based on no tax payable by assessee.
Comprehensive details of the judgment: 1. The assessee, a private limited company, filed its return for the previous year ending December 1975 on 19th August 1977. The original assessment resulted in a net loss of Rs. 41,867. Subsequent assessments and appeals led to a total income determination of Rs. 3,714 with a carried forward loss of Rs. 2,08,193 for the assessment year 1976-77. 2. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) added Rs. 35,631 due to stock value differences and levied a penalty of Rs. 20,690, which was 100% of the tax on the concealed income. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the assessee's argument that no penalty was leviable due to the final loss determined by the ITO and no tax payable by the assessee, citing a Madras High Court judgment. 4. The revenue contended that the Madras High Court judgment was based on old law and penalty should be based on the "amount of tax sought to be evaded," not on positive total income. 5. The assessee's counsel argued that penalty under s. 271(1)(c) should be in addition to any tax payable, emphasizing the distinction between tax payable and tax assessed, as per Supreme Court precedent. 6. The Tribunal concluded that the cancellation of penalty was justified as per the provisions of s. 271(1)(c) and Explanation 4, considering the difference between total income and total income assessed, even if the latter could be a negative figure. 7. The Tribunal observed that the words "income assessed" in Explanation 4 would be redundant if the revenue's proposition was accepted, highlighting the need for harmonious construction of the law. 8. Ultimately, the appeal by the revenue was dismissed, affirming the cancellation of the penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the applicable legal principles and precedents. Judgment by Tribunal: The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the cancellation of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to the absence of tax payable by the assessee and in accordance with the legal interpretations of total income assessed and tax sought to be evaded.
|
