Home › › Page 2

Search Results For: penalty

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 6, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 27, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 1982-83
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): If the basis on which penalty is initiated by the AO and the basis on which the quantum is confirmed on merits by the Tribunal are different, penalty cannot be levied

Explanation (1) to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act states that if a person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer to be false or such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him, then, the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of such person, as a result thereof shall for the purpose of Clause (c) of the said SubSection be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. In the present case, no addition of the amount has been made, nor is a case of disallowance. Even the Tribunal had accepted the case of the assessee that he is carrying on the business of Draft Discounting. It is also observed that in many cases, the Tribunal has taken a view that in case of Draft Discounting, income is considered at Rs.1/per thousand and in some cases, at Rs.2/per thousand. In the present case, it considered to Rs.2/per thousand. The assessee, therefore, was not required to give any explanation as his case was accepted by the Tribunal in Appeal. As such, for all the above reasons, Explanation (1) to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act would not be attracted

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 1, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 6, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 221: A reading of s. 221 conjointly with the definition of “tax” in s. 2(43) leads to the irresistible conclusion that the phraseology “tax in arrears” in s. 221 would not take within its realm the interest component. The AO can impose penalty for default in making the payment of tax, but the same shall not exceed the amount of tax in arrears. Tax in arrears would not include the interest payable u/s 220(2) of the Act

Reading Section 221 in its entirety, it is abundantly clear that the aspect of default in payment of tax and the amount of interest payable are treated as distinct and separate components. The section categorically and specifically states that when an Assessee is in default or is deemed to be in default in making payment of tax, he shall in addition to the amount of arrears and the amount of interest payable under SubSection 2 of Section 220, be liable, to pay penalty, however the amount of penalty does not exceed the amount of tax in arrears. The terminology “default in making a payment of tax and amount of interest payable” are considered to be separate for imposition of penalty and penalty is to be levied on account of default in making a payment of tax. However, the total amount of penalty shall not exceed the amount of tax in arrears. The said penalty for non payment of the tax is in addition to the levy of interest under SubSection 2 of Section 220. Under no principle of interpretation, the arrears of tax as laid down in the said Section would include the amount of interest payable under SubSection 2 of Section 220. The amount of penalty will have to be restricted on the arrears of tax, which would not include the interest component charged under Section 220(2) of the Act

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 24, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 30, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Penalty u/s 272A(2)(c) for delay in filing TDS returns cannot be levied if the delay was caused due to requirement to collect PAN of payees. The non-availability of the PAN of the payees is a reasonable cause. The delay is unintentional and it causes no loss to the revenue as the TDS has been deducted and deposited in the treasury. Wrong levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) (failure to deliver TDS certificate) instead of u/s 272A(2)(c) (delay in filing TDS returns) shows that AO is not clear of the charge and vitiates the penalty proceedings

The assessee has submitted that since there were large number of deductees scattered throughout the country, a fact not disputed by the Revenue, it took them some time to collect the PANs of these deductees and thereafter, it was able to upload the e-TDS returns in the IT system maintained by the Revenue. Further, the taxes have deducted and deposited at the prescribed rate with delay of few days. Hence, there is no loss to the Revenue which is caused due to the delay in filing of the e-TDS returns which is totally unintentional. Further, our attention was drawn to the decision of the Coordinate Benches in case Collector Land Acquisition v. ACIT (2012) taxmann.com 22(Chd.), CIT Branch Manager (TDS), UCO Bank vs. ACIT [2013] 35 taxmann.com 45 (Cuttack – Trib) and Branch Manager, State Bank of India v. ACIT [2014] 41 taxmann.com 268 (Cuttack – Trib) wherein non availability of PAN was held to be a reasonable cause for delay in filing of the e-TDS return. Given the peculiarity of the facts in the present case where there was a change effected in the IT system for mandatory requirement of PANs of all deductees before the returns can be validated and uploaded, the fact that there were large number of deductees spread throughout the country and efforts were made by the assessee to obtain their PANs numbers, the fact that taxes have been deducted and deposited, hence no loss to the Revenue, we find that assessee has a reasonable cause for delayed filing of its e-TDS returns in terms of section 273B and the penalty under section 272(A)(K) is hereby deleted

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 28, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 11, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings are “quasi-criminal” and ought to comply with the principles of natural justice. The non-striking of the irrelevant portion in the show-cause notice means that the AO is not firm about the charge against the assessee and the assessee is not made aware as to which of the two limbs of s. 271(1)(c) he has to respond. The fact that the assessment order is clear about the charge against the assessee is irrelevant (Samson Perinchery (Bom) followed, Kaushalya 216 ITR 660 (Bom) distinguished)

Apart from the aforesaid discussion, we may also refer to the one more seminal feature of this case which would demonstrate the importance of non-striking off of irrelevant clause in the notice by the Assessing Officer. As noted earlier, in the assessment order dated 10.12.2010 the Assessing Officer records that the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are to be initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of even date, both the limbs of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act are reproduced in the proforma notice and the irrelevant clause has not been struck-off. Quite clearly, the observation of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and non-striking off of the irrelevant clause in the notice clearly brings out the diffidence on the part of Assessing Officer and there is no clear and crystallised charge being conveyed to the assessee u/s 271(1)(c), which has to be met by him. As noted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra), the quasi-criminal proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act ought to comply with the principles of natural justice, and in the present case, considering the observations of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order alongside his action of non-striking off of the irrelevant clause in the notice shows that the charge being made against the assessee qua Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not firm and, therefore, the proceedings suffer from non-compliance with principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Assessing Officer is himself unsure and assessee is not made aware as to which of the two limbs of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act he has to respond

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 24, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 11, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Penalty cannot be levied if the omission to offer income, and the wrong claim of deduction, was by oversight and the auditors did not point it out. Also, the failure of the AO to specify the limb under which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is imposed is a fatal error

Undisputedly, in the return of income assessee has failed to offer interest on fixed deposit amounting to ` 5,92,186 and loss claimed on account of fixed asset written–off amounting to Rs 1,82,242. It is also a fact on record that in the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee accepted the taxability of these items of income and offered them to tax. The assessee has explained that non–disclosure of aforesaid two items of income is due to oversight and due to the fact that neither in the tax audit nor in the statutory audit such omission was pointed out. We find merit in the aforesaid explanation of the assessee

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: February 9, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 9, 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): Entire law explained on whether levy of penalty is automatic if return filed by the assessee u/s 153A discloses higher income than in the return filed u/s 139(1) in the context of the law as it stood prior to, and after, the insertion of Explanation 5 to s. 271(1)(c). Also, the law on levy of penalty on revised returns explained

When the A.O. has accepted the revised return filed by the assessee under Section 153A, no occasion arises to refer to the previous return filed under Section 139 of the Act. For all purposes, including for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the return that has to be looked at is the one filed under Section 153A. In fact, the second proviso to Section 153A(1) provides that “assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 or making of requisition under Section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate.” What is clear from this is that Section 153A is in the nature of a second chance given to the assessee, which incidentally gives him an opportunity to make good omission, if any, in the original return. Once the A.O. accepts the revised return filed under Section 153A, the original return under Section 139 abates and becomes non-est. Now, it is trite to say that the “concealment” has to be seen with reference to the return that it is filed by the assessee. Thus, for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c), what has to be seen is whether there is any concealment in the return filed by the assessee under Section 153A, and not vis-a vis the original return under Section 139

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 17, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 9, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): If the quantum appeal is admitted by the High Court, it means that the issue is debatable and penalty cannot be levied. Argument of the Dept that Nayan Builders 368 ITR 722 (Bom) does not lay down this proposition is not correct

The Revenue had filed an appeal from the order of the Tribunal in Nayan Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) deleting the penalty. This appeal being CIT vs. Nayan Builders and Developers [(2014) 368 ITR 722] was not entertained by this Court. It upheld the view of the Tribunal that the imposition of penalty was not justified as admission of appeal in quantum proceeding on this issue as substantial question of law was proof enough of the issue being debatable. The aforesaid decision in Nayan Builders and Developers Pvt.Ltd (supra) was also followed by this Court in CIT-8 vs. Aditya Birla Power Co. Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal No. 851 of 2014 rendered on 2nd December, 2015

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 5, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 3, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Failure by the AO to specify in the s. 274 notice whether the penalty is being initiated for 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' or for 'concealment of income' is fatal. It reflects non-application of mind and renders the levy of penalty invalid (Manjunatha Cotton 359 ITR 565 (Kar) followed)

The above submission on the part of the Revenue is in the face of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Pai v/s. CIT 292 ITR 11 [relied upon in Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra)] – wherein it is observed that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, carry different meanings/ connotations. Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer with regard to only one of the two breaches mentioned under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for initiation of penalty proceedings will not warrant/ permit penalty being imposed for the other breach. This is more so, as an Assessee would respond to the ground on which the penalty has been initiated/notice issued. It must, therefore, follow that the order imposing penalty has to be made only on the ground of which the penalty proceedings has been initiated, and it cannot be on a fresh ground of which the Assessee has no notice

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 5, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 11, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Omission by the AO to explicitly specify in the penalty notice as to whether penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation

Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts and circumstances of the case?

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 30, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 12, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) penalty cannot be levied in a case where the assessee has relied on legal opinion of a professional and there is no tax impact i.e. the loss disallowed in year one is allowed set-off in a later year

The Tribunal noted that the respondent had claimed the set off of its business income of Rs. 1.85 crores against the brought forward business losses of the earlier years on the basis of a legal opinion received from a leading firm of Chartered Accountants. The Tribunal found nothing clandestine in the manner in which the opinion was sought. In any event, even our attention was not invited to anything which suggests any malafides either in the obtaining of the opinion or otherwise. Further, the loss was allowed to be carried forward in the assessment year, namely, assessment year 2002-2003

Read more ›