9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assessment of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1996-97. Detailed Analysis: 1. The assessee filed a return of income declaring Rs. 8,85,440 for the year. Discrepancy in selling rates of liquor led to penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer. The assessee voluntarily surrendered Rs. 5,55,472 as additional income, but the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,25,000 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The assessee contended before the CIT(A) that the surrender was to avoid litigation and did not establish inaccurate particulars. The CIT(A) partially upheld the penalty. The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal. 3. The assessee argued that the State Excise Department did not fix sale rates, and there was no evidence of actual higher sales. The onus was on the revenue to prove the assessee earned more income than declared. The assessee relied on various legal precedents to support their case. 4. The Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' orders, emphasizing the need for penalty due to undisclosed income. The DR cited relevant legal cases to justify the penalty imposition. 5. The Tribunal analyzed the arguments and legal precedents cited. It noted that surrendering income voluntarily did not automatically lead to a penalty. Lack of positive evidence of concealment and no proof of selling liquor at higher prices supported the assessee's case. The Tribunal found no grounds for levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) and canceled the penalty, allowing the assessee's appeal. 6. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of concrete evidence of concealment and the absence of proof that the assessee sold liquor at higher prices. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lay with the revenue to establish concealment, which was not met in this case. 7. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, canceling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1996-97. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, overturning the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer.
|
