2018 (4) TMI 736 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that - When two views are possible and when no clear and definite inference can be dawn in a penalty proceeding penalty cannot be imposed. in quantum proceedings a particular provision might be attracted for addition to the income of the assessee. But when it comes to the question of imposition of penalty then independently of the finding arrived at in the quantum proceedings the authority has to find conclusively that the assessee owns the concealed amount. - See Durga Kamal Rice Mills 2003 (4) TMI 26 - CALCUTTA High Court - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against penalty imposed under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on inaccurate particulars; Compliance with principles of natural justice; Levying penalty of &8377; 12,000; Similarity in facts and issues with previous years' cases.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the penalty imposed under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case involved the assessee, engaged in providing accommodation entries, challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer (A.O). The A.O had added unexplained income to the assessee's total income under Sec. 68, leading to the penalty imposition. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, revising the assessed income. Subsequently, the A.O issued another show-cause notice for penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c), which was upheld by the CIT(A) in a consolidated order for multiple years.

2. The assessee contended that the penalty was unjustified, citing previous tribunal decisions in its favor for other assessment years. The Tribunal analyzed the facts and issues involved, noting the similarity with previous years' cases. Referring to a specific case, the Tribunal emphasized that penalty and assessment proceedings are separate, and estimation of income should not automatically lead to penalty imposition. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of conclusive evidence in penalty proceedings and the need for clear inferences.

3. Based on the analysis and precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed under Sec. 271(1)(c) was unwarranted in the present case. Drawing parallels with previous decisions and finding the arguments of the assessee convincing, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty of &8377; 12,000 imposed by the A.O. The order of the CIT(A) upholding the penalty was overturned, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the case and the Tribunal's decision.