9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 661 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - sale outside books of accounts - Held that - No infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the penalty levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the IT. Act. It is an admitted fact that in the instant case the assessee has sold bagasse outside books of account amounting to ₹ 1,19,32,050/-. Similarly, the assessee was also unable to explain the shortage of molasses stock at ₹ 9,62,150/-. The explanation of the assessee before the CIT(A) that assessee was facing difficulty in running the factory due to short supply of raw materials in our opinion cannot be a ground for making sales outside the books of accounts and non submission of details for shortage of molasses stock. Since the order of the CIT(A) in our opinion is a reasoned one which has been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs, therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the IT. Act. Accordingly, the same is upheld - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Non-appearance of the assessee before the CIT(A) and ITAT. 3. Validity of penalty imposition in the context of declared losses and subsequent positive income after additions. Detailed Analysis: 1. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act: The primary issue in this case revolves around the levy of penalty amounting to Rs. 44,53,000/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had filed its return of income declaring a loss, but various additions made by the AO during the assessment led to the initiation of penalty proceedings. The AO levied the penalty on the grounds that the assessee could not explain the sale of bagasse outside the books of accounts amounting to Rs. 1,90,32,050/- and the shortage of molasses worth Rs. 9,62,150/-. The CIT(A) upheld this penalty, noting that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations or evidence for these discrepancies, thus justifying the penalty under Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c). 2. Non-appearance of the Assessee Before the CIT(A) and ITAT: The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite multiple notices, leading to an ex-parte decision. Similarly, the assessee's counsel repeatedly sought adjournments before the ITAT, and eventually, no one appeared on the scheduled hearing date. Consequently, the ITAT decided the appeal based on the available records and the arguments presented by the Departmental Representative. The consistent non-appearance and failure to provide substantial evidence or explanations significantly weakened the assessee's position. 3. Validity of Penalty Imposition in the Context of Declared Losses and Subsequent Positive Income After Additions: The assessee argued that penalty should not be levied as per the Supreme Court's decision in Virtual Soft System Ltd., which held that penalty cannot be imposed in cases where the declared income is a loss. However, the CIT(A) and ITAT noted that the final assessed income became positive after the additions, making the case fall under the purview of penalty imposition as per the decision in Modi Cement Ltd. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the assessee's inability to substantiate the explanations for the discrepancies and the nature of the additions justified the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Conclusion: The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order confirming the penalty levied by the AO under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's failure to provide satisfactory explanations for the sale of bagasse outside the books and the shortage of molasses, coupled with non-appearance before the authorities, led to the dismissal of the appeal. The ITAT found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoned order, reinforcing the principles of penalty imposition under the Income Tax Act. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, and the penalty was sustained.
|
