Home ›

Search Results For: penalty

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 11, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 30, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not valid if (i) there is no record of satisfaction by the AO that there was any concealment of income or that any inaccurate particulars were furnished by the assessee or (ii) If the notice is issued in the printed form and the inapplicable portions are not struck off (Samson Perinchery 392 ITR 4 (Bom) & New Era Sova Mine [2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1032] followed, Mak Data 358 ITR 593 (SC) distinguished).

The notice which is issued to the assessee must indicate whether the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the case of the assessee involves concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or both, with clarity. If the notice is issued in the printed form, then, the necessary portions which are not applicable are required to be struck off, so as to indicate with clarity the nature of the satisfaction recorded

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: October 15, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 21, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2019-20
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Black Money Act: It is not correct to say that while exercising powers under Sections 85 and 86 of the Black Money Act, the Central Government has made the said Act retrospectively applicable from 01.07.2015. The penal provisions u/s 50 and 51 of the Black Money Act would come into play only when an assessee has failed to take benefit of S. 59 and neither disclosed assets covered by the Black Money Act nor paid the tax and penalty thereon

Sub­-section (3) of Section 1 of the Black Money Act, itself provides that save as otherwise provided in this Act, it shall come into force on 1 st day of July, 2015. A conjoint reading of the various provisions would reveal, that the Assessing Officer can charge the taxes only from the assessment year commencing on or after 01.04.2016. However, the value of the said asset has to be as per its valuation in the previous year. As such, even if there was no change of date in sub­section (3) of Section 1 of the Black Money Act, the value of the asset was to be determined as per its valuation in the previous year. The date has been changed only for the purpose of enabling the assessee(s) to take benefit of Section 59 of the Black Money Act. The power has been exercised only in order to remove difficulties. The penal provisions under Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money Act would come into play only when an assessee has failed to take benefit of Section 59 and neither disclosed assets covered by the Black Money Act nor paid the tax and penalty thereon. As such, we find that the High Court was not right in holding that, by the notification/order impugned before it, the penal provisions were made retrospectively applicable

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 2 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: , , , ,
DATE: April 11, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 23, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 250: The CBDT is empowered to lay down broad guidelines for disposal of appeals by CsIT(A). However, it cannot offer 'incentives' to CsIT(A) for making enhancement and levying penalty. Such policy transgresses the exercise of quasi-judicial powers & is wholly impermissible and invalid u/s 119. The 'Incentives' have the propensity to influence the CsIT(A) and they will be tempted to pass an order in a particular manner so as to achieve a greater target of disposal

All these contingencies necessarily point to circumstances where the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is in favour of the revenue. For example this policy refers to the enhancement made by the Commissioner or a case where the Commissioner has levied penalty under section 271(1) of the Act. This necessarily refers to enlargement of the assessee’s liability before the Commissioner as compared to what may have been determined by the Assessing Officer. In our opinion, such policy is wholly impermissible and invalid. Any directives by the CBDT which gives additional incentive for an order that the Commissioner (Appeals) may pass having regard to its implication, necessarily transgresses in the Commissioner’s exercise of discretionary quasi judicial powers.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: , , , ,
DATE: March 22, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 25, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 250: The CBDT should reconsider the direction in the Central Action Plan of offering incentives to CsIT(A) to enhance assessments and levy penalty. From the action plan, it is not clear as to the utility of the norms set which the CIT(A) has to achieve. If the purpose of setting of norms is to evaluate the performance of the CIT(A) there would be all the more reason why the above quoted portion of the action plan be reconsidered by the CBDT.

With respect to the Petitioners’ second part of the challenge, we are of the opinion that the CBDT should reconsider the same. From the action plan, it is not clear as to the utility of the norms set which the Commissioner has to achieve. If the purpose of setting of norms is to evaluate the performance of the Commissioner, there would be all the more reason why the above quoted portion of the action plan be reconsidered by the CBDT

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT: ,
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 13, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 18, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 269SS/ 271D Penalty: It is not enough for the assessee to show that the transaction of taking loan/ deposit by cash is genuine or bona fide. It has also to be shown that there was reasonable cause u/s 273B for the assessee being unable to take the loan/deposit by account payee cheque or account payee bank draft

There is no dispute between the parties that bonafide nature of transactions alone would not be sufficient to escape the clutches of sec. 271D of the Act. As per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kum. A.B. Shanthi (supra), it is required to be established that there was some bonafide reasons for the assessee for not taking or accepting loan or deposit by account payee cheque or account payee bank draft, so that the provisions of sec.273B of the Act will come to the help of the assessee. Only in such cases, the AO is precluded from levying penalty u/s 271D of the Act

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 1, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 28, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06, 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c)/ 292BB: "concealment of particulars of income" and "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income" referred to in s. 271(1)(c) denote two different connotations. It is imperative for the AO to make the assessee aware in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) as to which of the two limbs are being put-up against him. The failure to do so is fatal to the penalty proceedings. The argument that the assessee was made aware of the specific charge during the proceedings is of no avail. S. 292BB does not save the penalty proceedings from being declared void

Notably, Sec. 292BB of the Act has been inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2008 and is understood basically as a rule of evidence. The implication of Sec. 292BB of the Act is that once the assessee appears in any proceedings or has co-operated in any inquiry relating to assessment or reassessment, it shall be deemed that any notice under any provisions of the Act that is required to be served has been duly served upon him in accordance with the provisions of the Act and under these circumstances, assessee would be precluded from objecting that a notice that was required to be served under the Act was either not served upon him or was not served in time or was served in an improper manner. In our considered opinion, the provisions of Sec. 292BB of the Act have no relevance in the context of the impugned examination of the efficacy of the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Notably, the issue before us is not about the service of notice but as to whether the contents of the notice issued meets with the requirements of law. Therefore, the said argument of the ld. CIT-DR is also rejected

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 26, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 4, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 140A/ 221(1): Law explained on whether an assessee who defaults on paying self assessment tax u/s 140A while filing the return of income is liable for penalty u/s 221(1) if he files a revised return of income and pays the tax thereon at the time of filing the revised return of income

As a plain reading of the above statutory provisions would show, the lapse, referred to in section 140A(1), is the failure “to pay such (admitted) tax together with interest payable under any provision of this Act for any delay in furnishing the return or any default or delay in payment of advance tax, before furnishing the return” and the lapses punishable under section 221(1) are the lapses in respect of “default in making a payment of tax”. The default triggering the penal liability under section 221(1) is the default in making payment of tax, and that the default in payment is tax is with reference to the filing of the income tax return. Viewed thus, default is committed at the point of time when a return of income is filed without making payment of the admitted tax liability. Clearly, therefore, the assessee committed a default in not paying the admitted tax liability when it filed the original income tax return, without payment of admitted tax liability, on 30th September 2008. To this extent, there is no dispute or ambiguity at all.The question then arises as to what is the impact of filing a revised income tax return

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 4 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 21, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 29, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) penalty: The quantum of returned income (Rs. 34.94 crore) and tax paid (Rs.10.85 crore) vis-a-vis the addition/ disallowance (Rs. 13 lakh) indicates whether there was a mala fide intention to conceal. Deferral of depreciation allowance does not result in concealment of income or furnishing of furnishing of any inaccurate particulars. No penalty can be levied for a sheer accounting error of debiting loss incurred on sale of a fixed asset to the P&L A/c instead of reducing the sale consideration from the WDV of the block

The claim for depreciation only gets deferred to subsequent Years by claiming it for half year. In our view the deferral of depreciation allowance does not result into any concealment of income or furnishing of furnishing of any inaccurate particulars. However, it was a sheer accounting error in debiting loss incurred on sale of a fixed asset to profit and loss account instead of reducing the sale consideration from wdv of the block under block concept of depreciation. There was a sheer accounting error in debiting loss incurred on sale of a fixed asset to profit & loss account instead of reducing the sale consideration from wdv of the block under block concept of depreciation. There was a separate line item indicated loss on fixed asset of RS.1,69,429/- in the Income & Expenditure Account which was omitted to be added back in the computation. The error went un-noticed by the tax auditor as well as the same was overlooked while certifying the Income & Expenditure Account 12 and by the tax consultant while preparing the computation of income. Hence, there was no intention to avoid payment of taxes

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 20, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 22, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
GST: As the system is not working and is required to be corrected, taxpayers who are unable to log-in should inform the concerned officials. No coercive action (penal interest, late fees and prosecution) shall be levied against the clients of the Petitioners' members referred in the petition and those who inform by email. The composition Scheme is extended upto 30.9.2017 and desirous assessee can apply

Looking to the averments which are made in the petition and the reply which has been filed, it appears that the system is not working upto the level and the same is required to be corrected & updated to meet requirements. In the meantime, no coercive action (penal interest, late fees and prosecution) against any of the client of the petitioners members who are referred in the petition and are informing by email, will be protected

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 18, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 17, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271AAA: No penalty u/s 271AAA can be levied in respect of undisclosed income found during a search u/s 132 if the AO did not put a specific query to the assessee by drawing his attention to s. 271 AAA and asking him to specify the manner in which the undisclosed income, surrendered during the course of search, had been derived

The CIT(A) noted that no specific query had been put to the Assessee by drawing his attention to Section 271 AAA of the Act asking him to specify the manner in which the undisclosed income, surrendered during the course of search, had been derived. The CIT (A), therefore, relying on the decisions of this Court held that the jurisdictional requirement of Section 271AAA was not met. The above view has been concurred with by the ITAT. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that the concurrent decision of the CIT(A) and the ITAT represent a plausible view which cannot be said to be perverse

Read more ›