9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 354 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - return of income in response to the notice u/s. 148 filed by the assessee - Assessee argued no difference in the returned income and assessed income - HELD THAT - Assessee has offered the income by filling the correct returned of income upon issue of notice and the assessment is completed on that returned income filed by the assessee without any change. Thus, the assessee though surrendered the income at the time of re-assessment notice by filling the return of income and has paid the tax due thereon along with the interest, thus, the said disclosure hold valid without any adjustment and made good faith voluntarily. Respectfully following the finding of the binding decision of Jurisdictional high court in the case of Pushpendra Surana 2013 (8) TMI 969 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT and Cheldas Khushalas Patel 1992 (1) TMI 72 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT wherein the similar view is taken that if the assessee filed correct income at the time of the re-assessment proceeding and such disclosure accepted by the revenue without any change, then in that case it does not hold liable the assessee for any penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and validity of penalty order under Section 271(1)(c). 2. Legitimacy of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for various deductions. 3. Vagueness of the show cause notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c). 4. Whether the assessee's explanation for erroneous deductions was bona fide. 5. Impact of the revised return filed in response to notice under Section 148. 6. Whether the penalty should be imposed at 200% or 100%. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction and Validity of Penalty Order under Section 271(1)(c): The assessee contested the penalty order dated 12.12.2018, arguing it was bad in law and lacked jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that the penalty proceedings were initiated based on an invalid return filed after the prescribed time limit under Section 139(4). The return was considered non-est, and the assessment was reopened under Section 147, leading to the issuance of a notice under Section 148. The Tribunal emphasized that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings and require independent evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. Legitimacy of Penalty Imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for Various Deductions: The penalty was imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income concerning deductions under Chapter VIA and for concealing income from other sources. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had claimed deductions year after year, which were later withdrawn in the revised returns filed in response to notices under Section 148. The Tribunal found that the assessee's consistent erroneous claims indicated a deliberate attempt to evade tax. 3. Vagueness of the Show Cause Notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c): The assessee argued that the show cause notice was vague. The Tribunal noted that the notice clearly stated the reasons for the penalty, including excessive claims of deductions and non-disclosure of interest income. The Tribunal found no merit in the argument of vagueness. 4. Whether the Assessee's Explanation for Erroneous Deductions was Bona Fide: The assessee claimed that the erroneous deductions were due to ignorance and were corrected voluntarily upon realization. The Tribunal did not accept this explanation, noting that the deductions were claimed for five consecutive years, which could not be attributed to a bona fide mistake. The Tribunal held that the assessee's actions were a willful attempt to evade tax. 5. Impact of the Revised Return Filed in Response to Notice under Section 148: The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee filed revised returns in response to notices under Section 148, declaring higher income and paying due taxes. However, it emphasized that the revised returns were filed only after the initiation of inquiries by the Department. The Tribunal held that the revised returns did not absolve the assessee from the penalty, as the original returns contained inaccurate particulars and concealed income. 6. Whether the Penalty Should be Imposed at 200% or 100%: The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) imposed the penalty at 200% without providing specific reasons. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the penalty should be reduced to the minimum of 100%. The Tribunal directed the AO to recalculate the penalty at 100%. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) but reduced it from 200% to 100%. The Tribunal found that the assessee's actions constituted furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing income, warranting the penalty. The appeals were partly allowed, with the penalty recalculated at 100%.
|
