Home ›

Search Results For: 271(1)(c)

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: June 12, 2020 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 13, 2020 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 260A/ 271(1)(c): (i) An appeal u/s 260-A can be entertained by the High Court on the issue of jurisdiction even if the same was not raised before the Tribunal (ii) the question relating to non-striking off of the inapplicable portion in the s. 271(1)(c) show-cause notice goes to the root of the lis & is a jurisdictional issue (iii) it would be too technical and pedantic to take the view that because in the printed notice the inapplicable portion was not struck off, the order of penalty should be set aside even though in the assessment order it was clearly mentioned that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) had been initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, (iv) Penalty cannot be imposed for alleged breach of one limb of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act while proceedings were initiated for breach of the other limb of s. 271(1)(c). This vitiates the order of penalty, (v) Threat of penalty cannot become a gag and / or haunt an assessee for making a claim which may be erroneous or wrong (All judgements referred)

Concealment of particulars of income was not the charge against the appellant, the charge being furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. As discussed above, it is trite that penalty cannot be imposed for alleged breach of one limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act while penalty proceedings were initiated for breach of the other limb of Section 271(1)(c). This has certainly vitiated the order of penalty.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
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
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 26, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 13, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Prosecution u/s 276C for tax evasion: If the assessee's appeal against levy of s. 271(1)(c) penalty for concealment of income is allowed & has become final, the quashing of prosecution is automatic. The High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the prosecution and not indulge in the empty formality of directing the assessee to approach the trial Magistrate (K. C. Builders 265 ITR 562 (SC) followed)

The subject matter of the complaint being concealment of income arrived at on the basis of the finding of the assessing officer, if the Tribunal has set aside the order of concealment and penalties, there is no concealment in the eye of law and, therefore, the prosecution cannot be proceeded with by the complainant and further proceedings will be illegal and without jurisdiction

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 3, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 6, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 254(2)/ 271(1)(c): Though the High Court faulted the Tribunal's decision of reducing the penalty as a "way to bypass the minimum limit" and the Tribunal was in error in granting the relief, the same does not constitute a "mistake apparent from the record" so as to enable the Tribunal to revisit its decision

The observations of Hon’ble High Court, disapproving the conclusions, are based on the proposition that the conclusion of the Tribunal was a way to bypass the minimum limit. That is, with respect, a wholly a highly subjective observation and all a matter of perception. The other way of looking at the conclusions of the Tribunal could possibly be, and that’s how we looked at it, that the explanation of the assessee was partly accepted and, as regards the element of income on which explanation was not accepted, the penalty was still one hundred percent of tax sought to be evaded. It was stated to be accepted past history of the case, as pleaded before the Tribunal, that all the cash deposits were not of income nature but in the nature of business receipts and that only income embedded therein could be brought to tax. Wrongly though, as we have learnt the hard way, we were in error in following the same path for the purpose of evaluating explanation extended before the Tribunal during the hearing, but then this was not altogether devoid of any basis or rationale. The rationale or basis of our approach has turned out to be incorrect but it clearly did exist. In any event, it was not something which was incapable of two opinions

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 19, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 29, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) Penalty: Merely because the High Court has admitted the Appeal and framed substantial questions of law, it cannot be said that the entire issue is debatable one and under no circumstances, penalty could be imposed (CIT vs. Dharamshi B. Shah 366 ITR 140 (Guj) followed)

Admission of a tax appeal by the High Court, in majority cases, is ex parte and without recording even prima facie reasons. Whether ex parte or after by-parte hearing, unless some other intention clearly emerges from the order itself, admission of a tax appeal by the High Court only indicates the court’s opinion that the issue presented before it required further consideration. It is an indication of the opinion of the High Court that there is a prima facie case made out and the questions are required to be decided after admission. Mere admission of an appeal by the High Court cannot without there being anything further, be an indication that the issue is debatable one so as to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT: ,
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 9, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 5, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 1997-98
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) Penalty: Law explained on whether penalty can be imposed where (i) income is added or disallowance is made on estimate basis, (ii) books of account cannot be produced for reasons beyond control, (iii) disallowance is made as per retrospective insertion of s. 37(1) Explanation & (iv) allegation regarding concealment vs. furnishing inaccurate particulars is vague & uncertain

Where income is estimated or disallowance of expenses i made on estimate basis, there can be no penalty. The raison d’etre for non-imposition of penalty in both the situations is that there is a lack of precision as to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It is only an estimation shorn of any certainty or accuracy

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 4, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 7, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005- 06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) Penalty: If appeals with reference to the quantum proceedings have been admitted by the Court on substantial questions of law, it means that there were debatable and arguable questions raised and so penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied (PCIT v. Shree Gopal Housing 167 DTR 236 distinguished). Penalty also cannot be levied if the claim was as per judicial precedents prevalent at the time of filing the ROI. Also, there must be a finding that the details supplied by the assessee in its return were incorrect or erroneous or false

In all these appeals, we find that the appeals with reference to the quantum proceedings have been admitted by this Honourable Court on a substantial question of law. That has also been recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned order and the same is also not disputed before us. We find that the appeals were admitted as this Court found that there were debatable and arguable questions raised in the quantum proceedings. This being the case, we find that the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, was fully justified in confirming the order of the CIT (A) in all the three assessment years for deleting the penalty

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT: ,
CORAM:
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 7, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 2, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09, 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c)/ 292B: The AO cannot initiate penalty on the charge of 'concealment of particulars of income', but ultimately find the assessee guilty in the penalty order of 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income' (and vice versa). In the same manner, he cannot be uncertain in the penalty order as to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by using slash between the two expressions. Such error is not procedural but goes to the root of the matter and is not saved by s. 292B. The error renders the penalty order unsustainable in law

When the AO is satisfied that it is a clear-cut case of concealment of particulars of income, he must specify it so in the notice at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings and also in the penalty order. The AO cannot initiate penalty on the charge of `concealment of particulars of income’, but ultimately find the assessee guilty in the penalty order of `furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’. In the same manner, he cannot be uncertain in the penalty order as to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by using slash between the two expressions. When the AO is satisfied that it is a clear-cut case of `furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’, he must again specify it so in the notice at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings and also in the penalty order. After initiating penalty on the charge of `furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’, he cannot impose penalty by finding the assessee guilty of `concealment of particulars of income’

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 4, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 11, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) Penalty: Merely using the words that there is concealment of income and / or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not sufficient. The same should be particularized by the AO with a finding as to what particulars of income has been concealed or what particulars of income are inaccurate. The words 'concealment' or giving 'inaccurate particulars of income' have to be read strictly before penalty provisions u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be invoked. Zoom Communication 371 ITR 570 (Del) distinguished

Mere using the words that there is concealment of income and / or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income would not in the absence of same being particularized, lead to imposition of penalty. It is only when the specified officer of the Revenue is satisfied that there has been concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income that the occasion to explain the conduct in terms of Explanation I to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act would arise

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 15, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 24, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) Penalty: The primary burden of proof is on the Revenue to show that the assessee is guilty of concealment/ furnishing inaccurate particulars. Making an incorrect claim does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars by any stretch of imagination. Wrong claim of depreciation by crediting capital subsidy to reserves instead of reducing from actual cost/ WDV does not attract s. 271(1)(c) penalty

The expression “has concealed the particulars of income” and “has furnished inaccurate particulars of income” have not been defined either in sec. 271(l)(c) or elsewhere in the Act. One thing is certain that these two circumstances are not identical in details although they may lead to same effect, namely, keeping of a certain portion of income. The former is direct and the later may be indirect in its execution. The word “conceal” is derived from the Latin word “concolare” which implies to hide. In the present appeal, even if a excess depreciation has been claimed by the assessee on the basis of the Companies Act does not mean that the assessee had hidden something, therefore, even if a wrong claim is made, automatically, does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Concealment refers to a deliberate act on the part of the assessee. The primary burden of proof is on the Revenue, before a penalty is imposed u/s 271(l)(c) because by no stretch of imagination, making a incorrect claim, does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, therefore, keeping in view the totality of facts and the judicial pronouncements, that too from the Hon’ble Apex Court, no penalty is leviable especially when there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return is erroneous or incorrect, therefore, mere making a excess claim in itself does not invite imposition of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) because the same cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars

Read more ›