9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal filed by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - Cross-objection filed by the assessee - Separate appeal filed by the assessee against the same order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - Reduction of penalty levied for concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Dispute regarding the quantum of penalty and computation of total income Analysis: 1. The judgment involves three appeals related to one order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and was considered together. The department appealed against the reduction of penalty, while the assessee filed a cross-objection and a separate appeal. The appeals were adjourned multiple times at the request of the assessee, citing lack of certain relevant evidence as a reason for adjournment. However, the request was rejected as insufficient. The appeals were disposed of on merits after hearing the departmental representative. 2. The department's appeal was against the Commissioner (Appeals) reducing the penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The dispute arose from discrepancies in the declared receipts of the contractor, leading to a penalty for concealment. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty based on a Supreme Court decision regarding the treatment of materials supplied in determining net profit. The department and the assessee both appealed against the order, with the assessee arguing for the deletion of the penalty. 3. The assessee contended that they relied on incorrect certificates issued by the paying authority, but the tribunal found this argument baseless. It was established that the assessee had suppressed receipts intentionally to evade taxes, as evidenced by discrepancies in the accounts and the procurement of incorrect certificates. The tribunal rejected the appeal and cross-objection, upholding the penalty. 4. The department's appeal raised grounds challenging the Commissioner (Appeals)' conclusions on the declared receipts and the applicability of a Supreme Court decision regarding materials supplied. The tribunal agreed with the department's arguments, holding that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in excluding the value of materials supplied in computing the profit. The tribunal allowed the department's appeal, restoring the penalty initially levied. 5. In conclusion, the department's appeal was allowed, the cross-objection of the assessee was rejected, and the separate appeal of the assessee was also dismissed. The tribunal upheld the penalty for concealment, emphasizing the intentional suppression of receipts and the incorrect certificates obtained by the assessee.
|
