2016 (9) TMI 1075 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(C) - whether the assessee firm had inflated the profits by introducing the income from undeclared sources to get maximum deduction under section 80IC? - Held that - The facts in the present case, we find, are identical to that in the preceding year, being penalty levied on addition made of unproved cash sales. As in the preceding year, the assessee in the impugned year had maintained complete Books of accounts which were audited also. The Books of accounts alongwith purchase bills, sales bills and stock register were produced before the lower authorities and complete facts with regard to sales made to different parties was disclosed. Thus the factum of cash sales was not concealed by the assessee. The sales ,including the cash sales,had been accepted by the sales tax authorities. The authorities below disbelieved the explanation of the assessee with regard to cash sales because complete details of the parties to whom cash sales was made was not disclosed. Since on identical facts the Hon ble I.T.A.T. has deleted penalty in the case of the assessee in the preceding year , respectfully following the same, we set aside the order of the authorities below and delete the penalty levied in the impugned year. Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2008-09.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay
The appeal was initially time-barred by two days, but the delay was condoned upon the assessee's explanation that the appeal filing date fell on a Sunday, and the necessary documents were signed and submitted the next day. The delay was deemed justified, and the appeal was allowed to proceed.

Issue 2: Background of the Case
The assessee firm, engaged in manufacturing and sale of essential oils, declared nil income after claiming deductions under section 80IC of the Act. The Assessing Officer raised concerns regarding cash sales, leading to scrutiny of the books of accounts and subsequent penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Issue 3: Penalty Imposition
The Assessing Officer concluded that the cash sales represented the assessee's own funds introduced as sales income, adding it back to the total income under section 68 of the Act. Despite the firm's arguments and supporting documentation, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was upheld by the CIT(Appeals) based on inaccurate particulars of income through alleged bogus cash sales.

Issue 4: Appellate Tribunal's Decision
The appellate tribunal noted that the penalty levied in the preceding year on similar unexplained cash sales was deleted due to lack of evidence supporting concealment of income. The tribunal emphasized that disbelieving the explanation alone was insufficient grounds for penalty imposition, especially when the explanation was not proven false. The tribunal highlighted that the quantum and penalty proceedings are distinct, requiring a separate justification for penalty imposition.

Issue 5: Decision on Penalty
Considering the identical nature of the facts in the current year to the preceding year, where penalty was deleted, the tribunal found that the assessee had maintained proper records, disclosed sales details, and the cash sales were accepted by tax authorities. As a result, the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was set aside, aligning with the precedent set in the earlier year's case.

Conclusion
The tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, emphasizing that the penalty was not justified given the arguable and debatable nature of the case. The decision to delete the penalty was based on the assessee's ability to explain the cash sales with supporting evidence, as seen in the preceding year's judgment.

This comprehensive analysis outlines the key issues, arguments, and the tribunal's decision regarding the challenge to the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2008-09.