9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 1152 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) set aside by AO - assessee filed the revised return after the search operation in the case of AMN Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. and offered the value of the jewellery for taxation - Held that - When the assessee offered the income voluntarily and offered the same for taxation and the source of acquisition of such jewellery was also explained before the Assessing Officer as the gifts from relatives, friends and parents, which are accepted, there is no need to proceed further with penalty proceeding. As It cannot be said that the view taken by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Assessing Officer for dropping the penalty proceeding initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is one of the possible views supported by the judgment of Apex Court in Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001 (6) TMI 63 - SUPREME Court). Therefore, it is not justified for the Administrative Commissioner to substitute his view by setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer dropping the penalty proceeding initiated. Therefore, we are unable to uphold the orders of the Commissioner. Accordingly the orders of the Administrative Commissioner passed under Section 263 of the Act are set aside and that of the Assessing Officer dropping the penalty proceeding are restored. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues:
Appeal against orders revising penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on delayed filing of appeals, sufficiency of cause for delay, source of acquired jewellery, revisional jurisdiction under Section 263, voluntary disclosure of income, application of mind by Assessing Officer, and validity of penalty proceedings. Detailed Analysis: 1. Delayed Filing of Appeals: The appeals were filed belatedly by the assessees, with delays ranging from 565 to 570 days. The assessees sought condonation of delay, which was granted by the Tribunal based on finding sufficient cause for the delay and admitting the appeals. 2. Source of Acquired Jewellery: The assessees sold jewellery to a company and claimed it was acquired through gifts during marriages and other functions. The Assessing Officer initially initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) but later dropped them after accepting revised returns disclosing the jewellery and offering it for taxation. 3. Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 263: The Administrative Commissioner, in a revisional capacity, found the dropping of penalty proceedings by the Assessing Officer to be erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests. The Commissioner contended that voluntary disclosure does not absolve assessees from penalty consequences under the Act. 4. Voluntary Disclosure of Income: The Departmental Representative argued that voluntary disclosure post-search does not exempt assessees from penalty, emphasizing that the Income-tax Act does not recognize such defenses. The Assessing Officer was directed to reconsider the penalty proceedings by the Administrative Commissioner. 5. Application of Mind by Assessing Officer: The Tribunal analyzed the proviso to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, emphasizing the Assessing Officer's discretion to levy penalties for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal considered the voluntary disclosure by the assessees and the acceptance of the revised returns by the Assessing Officer. 6. Validity of Penalty Proceedings: The Tribunal, following the judgment in Suresh Chandra Mittal case, concluded that when assessees voluntarily disclose income and explain the source, penalty proceedings may not be warranted. The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's decision to drop the penalty proceedings to be supported by law and set aside the orders of the Administrative Commissioner under Section 263. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed all appeals filed by the assessees, reinstating the Assessing Officer's decision to drop the penalty proceedings. The judgment emphasized the importance of voluntary disclosure, explanation of sources, and the Assessing Officer's discretion in penalty matters under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
|
