Home › › Page 5

Search Results For: 271(1)(c)

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: May 6, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 2, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Penalty under Explanation 5A to s. 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on the basis of a mere surrender by the assessee if no incriminating material has been found during search. MAK Data 358 ITR 593 (SC) considered

It is undisputed fact that during the course of search, no incriminating documents were found and seized. The assessee surrendered the additional income under section 132(4) at Rs. 15 lacs and requested not to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The AO imposed the penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by ld. CIT (A) by considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC). But for imposing the penalty under Explanation 5A on the basis of statement recorded during the course of search, it is necessary to be found incriminating documents and is to be considered at the time of assessment framed under section 153A of the Act

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 19, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 28, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) vs. 271AAA: Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on income disclosed in a search instead of u/s 271AAA is not sustainable

The penalty in this case, if at all leviable, it should have been levied under section 271AAA (1) and not u/s 271(1)(c) as has categorically been provided in sub-section (3) of section 271AAA. Intention of the legislative in incorporating the provisions contained u/s 271AA effective during the period 1st June, 2007 to 1st July, 2012 is to provide general amnesty in search and seizure cases, and the case of the assessee undisputedly falls u/s 271AAA and cannot be dealt with u/s 271(1)(c) by any stretch of imagination even

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 13, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 19, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) penalty on Bogus Purchases: If the assessment order in the quantum proceedings is altered by an appellate authority in a significant way, the very basis of initiation of the penalty proceedings is rendered non-existent and the AO cannot continue the penalty proceedings on the basis of the same notice

Once the assessment order of the AO in the quantum proceedings was altered by the CIT (A) in a significant way, the very basis of initiation of the penalty proceedings was rendered non-existent. The AO could not have thereafter continued the penalty proceedings on the basis of the same notice. Also, the Court concurs with the CIT (A) and the ITAT that once the finding of the AO on bogus purchases was set aside, it could not be said that there was any concealment of facts or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the Assessee that warranted the imposition of penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 7, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 22, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Income-tax provisions are highly complicated and it is difficult for a layman to understand the same. Even seasoned tax professionals have difficulty in comprehending these provisions. Making a claim for deduction u/s S.80 IA which has numerous conditions is a complicated affair & cannot attract penalty

The provisions under the Income Tax Act are highly complicated and its different for a layman to understand the same. Even seasoned tax professionals have difficulty in comprehending these provisions. Making a claim for deduction under the provisions of S.80 IA of the Act which has numerous The provisions under the Income Tax Act are highly complicated and its different for a layman to understand the same. Even seasoned tax professionals have difficulty in comprehending these provisions. Making a claim for deduction under the provisions of S.80 IA of the Act which has numerous conditions attached, is a complicated affair. It is another matter that the assessing authorities have found that the claim is not admissible. Under these circumstances we hold that it cannot be said that this is a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

Read more ›

Posted on by itatbar — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 22, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 5, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): If show-cause notice does not delete inappropriate words whereby it was not clear as to whether the default is concealing particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, the levy of penalty is invalid

The Tribunal quashed penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) for AY 2007-08 as penalty show cause notice failed to specify default committed by assessee i.e. the AO did not delete inappropriate words / parts whereby it was not clear as to the default committed by assessee was for concealing particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

Read more ›

Posted on by CA. Pinky Kapoor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 3, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 31, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): No penalty leviable on bonafide human error committed while filing return of income

When the assessee was confronted with the depreciation being claimed on the property, the income from which had been returned under the head income from house property, it immediately realized its mistake of computation of total income and agreed for the addition to its total income. The mistake was inadvertent, is evident from the fact that assessee had furnished return of income of Rs. 3,27,79,273/- and, therefore, there was no reason to make a false claim of a petty sum of Rs. 7,87,734/-

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 9, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 23, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Penalty is not leviable on income declared during survey and offered in return. Law laid down in Mak Data 358 ITR 593 (SC) is distinguishable on facts and not universally applicable. A mere change of head of income does not attract penalty

The reliance by the Revenue upon the decision of the Apex Court in Mak Data P. Ltd 358 ITR 593 (SC) to contend that the justification of having deleted and accepted the amount of Rs.1.62 Crores as business income, to buy peace is not available. We find that the facts in that case are completely distinguishable and the observations made therein would not be universally applicable. In that case, a sum of Rs.40.74 lakhs had never been disclosed to the Revenue. During the course of survey, the assessee therein had surrendered that amount with a covering letter that this surrender has been made to avoid litigation and buy peace with the Revenue. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Apex Court held that the words like “to avoid litigation and buy peace” is not sufficient explanation of an assessee’s conduct. It held that the assessee had to offer an explanation for the concealment of income and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by leading cogent and reliable evidence. The Apex Court further records that in the facts of the case before it the surrender of income was not voluntary but was made only on the account of detection by the Assessing Officer during the course of survey. Further, the Apex Court also records the fact that the survey was conducted more than 10 months before the assessee filed its return of income

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 24, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 23, 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 on all issues in a "wholesale" manner. The AO has to give findings for each issue separately. He has to apply mind meticulously and carefully for each issue separately and establish precisely whether there was concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessee cannot be fastened with the liability of penalty without there being a clear or specific charge. Fixing a charge in a vague and casual manner is not permitted under the law. Fixing twin charges is also not permitted under the law

It is further noted, from the perusal of penalty order, that the penalty has been levied, on all the additions/disallowances, in a ‘whole sale’ manner. The AO has not given his findings, for levying the penalty, for each issue separately, with respect to the satisfaction of the AO for each of the issue respectively, nor has he given a finding for each issue separately as to whether there was a concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The AO has held in the penalty order that various disallowance made by the AO have been confirmed by the Ld CIT(A) and therefore, it is automatically established that the assessee has concealed its income and furnished inaccurate particulars, which has led into concealment of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our considered view, this approach of the AO for levy of penalty is not correct as per law. Penal provisions are quite harsh, these can make the assessee liable for prosecution, as well. Therefore, the AO is obliged, under the law, to make application of his mind meticulously and carefully for each issue separately and to show and establish precisely and specifically whether there was concealment of income or there was furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on the part of the assessee, at the stage of filing of return of income. The Assessee cannot be fastened with the liability of penalty without there being a clear or specific charge. Fixing a charge in a vague and casual manner is not permitted under the law. Fixing the twin charges is also not permitted under the law. We drive support from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Co vs CIT 282 ITR 642 (Guj)

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 25, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 12, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2001-02
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c)/ 271(1-B): If the notice is issued without application of mind (by striking out the relevant part in the notice), the penalty proceedings are invalid

It is clear that the notice is issued proposing to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act whereas the order is passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which clearly indicates that there was no application of mind by the Assessing Officer while issuing the notice under Section 274 of the Act. As regards Section 271(1-B) of the Act, it clearly indicates that the assessment order should contain a direction for initiation of proceedings. Merely saying that the penalty proceedings have been initiated would not satisfy the requirement, a direction to initiate proceeding shall be clear and not be ambiguous

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 2 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 6, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 3, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): A penalty notice u/s 274 which does not strike out the irrelevant portion & which does not specify whether the penalty is for “concealment” or for “furnishing inaccurate particulars” renders the penalty order void

The next argument that the show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act which is in a printed form does not strike out as to whether the penalty is sought to be levied on the for “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” or “concealing particulars of such income”. On this aspect we find that in the show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act the AO has not struck out the irrelevant part. It is therefore not spelt out as to whether the penalty proceedings are sought to be levied for “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” or “concealing particulars of such income”

Read more ›