9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (7) TMI 177 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - assessee contested that since the return was filed in loss and there was no income therefore there is no question of concealment of income, consequently, no penalty can be imposed - Held that - Finding in the assessment order reveals that it is a case where the sales are made to the parties which were not identifiable, therefore, the claim of the assessee, prima facie appears to be non-genuine. There is no explanation as to how the opening stock of Rs.55,23,532/-, after the sales of Rs.6,37,204/-, reduced to Rs.1,42,600/-. The assessee has also not filed any appeal against the quantum addition of Rs.25 lakhs - The assessee has shown abnormal and excessive loss on the claimed decrease in value and for which also, no satisfactory explanation was adduced - against assessee.
Issues:
Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act based on trading loss declaration and valuation of stock. Analysis: The case involved an appeal against the imposition of a penalty of Rs.9,62,500 under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The assessee declared a trading loss of Rs.48,70,920, attributing it to the valuation of stock at realizable value. The Assessing Officer disallowed the trading loss, considering it a colorable device to reduce tax liability. The penalty was imposed based on this disallowed amount. The first appellate authority reduced the trading loss to Rs.25 lakhs but upheld the penalty. The Tribunal considered the arguments of both parties and reviewed the facts of the case. The Assessing Officer's stance was that the assessee failed to justify the valuation of stock, leading to the disallowance of the claimed trading loss. The Tribunal noted that the penalty proceedings are connected to the quantum proceedings and observed that for penalty under section 271(1)(c), there should be concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal found that the assessee did not provide sufficient explanations or evidence for the significant decrease in the value of certain commodities in the stock, leading to a suspicion of concealment. The assessee argued that since the return was filed with nil income, no penalty for concealment could be imposed. However, the Tribunal cited a Supreme Court decision that clarified the applicability of penalties even in cases of nil income returns. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the valuation of stock and lack of explanations for the significant decrease in value. The Tribunal also highlighted that the assessee did not appeal against the quantum addition made by the first appellate authority, indicating acceptance of the addition. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's claim of trading loss lacked bona fides and indicated falsity. The Tribunal referenced a case where a penalty was not levied due to a small difference in valuation but distinguished it from the present case due to the lack of explanations provided by the assessee. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer, affirming the decision of the first appellate authority. In summary, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, upholding the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing genuine explanations and evidence in cases involving valuation of stock and claimed losses to avoid suspicion of concealment of income.
|
