9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 21 - HC - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that - The addition has been made by AO purely on estimate basis - It is a pure guess work as it was not based on any fact - On such guess work or estimation, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable - For imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has to clearly prove the conduct of the assessee - The assessee offered an explanation, which could not be termed as not bona fide - In the absence of any corroborative evidence, it cannot be said that there was concealment of income - Relying upon the decision in CIT v. Aero Traders P. Ltd. 2010 (1) TMI 32 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Penalty is not leviable when income was based on estimated profit and substantially reduced by the Tribunal - Decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c). 2. Sustainability of the Tribunal's order when the additions made by the Assessing Officer were upheld. 3. Imposability of penalty when additions are made on estimation and sustained at the appellate stage. Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of Deleting the Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(c): The core issue pertains to the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer on an amount of Rs. 1,00,000, which was sustained as an addition and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1996-97. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the said penalty. The respondent, a registered firm engaged in retreading old tyres, faced a survey operation where discrepancies were found, leading to an estimated addition of Rs. 1,44,000. This was reduced to Rs. 1,00,000 by the ITAT on an estimation basis. The assessee argued that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and the addition was purely on an estimation basis, which should not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal agreed, noting that the addition was based on estimation without positive evidence of concealment, and thus, no penalty could be imposed. 2. Sustainability of the Tribunal's Order When the Additions Made by the Assessing Officer Were Upheld: The appellant-Department argued that since the addition was upheld by the ITAT, the penalty should also be sustained. The Tribunal, however, noted that the addition was made on an estimation basis due to discrepancies found during the survey. The Tribunal emphasized that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings, and the findings in assessment proceedings are not conclusive for penalty proceedings. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation was bona fide and there was no corroborative evidence to prove concealment, thus justifying the deletion of the penalty. 3. Imposability of Penalty When Additions Are Made on Estimation and Sustained at the Appellate Stage: The Tribunal and various High Courts, including the apex court in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC), have consistently held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed merely because additions are made on an estimation basis. The Patna High Court in CIT v. Kailash Crockery House [1999] 235 ITR 544 (Patna) and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Metal Products of India [1984] 150 ITR 714 (P&H) have held that estimated additions do not automatically lead to the conclusion of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Whitelene Chemicals [2014] 360 ITR 385 (Guj) and CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. [1996] 221 ITR 110 (Guj) reiterated that rejection of books and estimation of profit cannot ground for penalty imposition. The findings of the Tribunal were based on appreciation of evidence and absence of any deliberate attempt to maintain false books or conceal income. Conclusion: The Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty was based on the fact that the addition was made on an estimation basis without positive evidence of concealment. The Tribunal's findings were supported by various High Court judgments, which held that penalties under section 271(1)(c) are not justified when additions are based on estimations. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's order.
|
