Supreme Court Quashes Rajasthan Village Renaming, Says Government Must Follow its Own Policy  ||  NCLAT: NCLT Can Order Forensic Audit on its Own, No Separate Application Required  ||  NCLAT Reiterates That IBC Cannot be Invoked as a Recovery Tool for Contractual Disputes  ||  Delhi HC: DRI or Central Revenues Control Lab Presence in Delhi Alone Does Not Confer Jurisdiction  ||  Delhi High Court: Software Receipts Not Taxable on PE Basis Already Rejected by ITAT  ||  Delhi High Court: Statutory Appeals Cannot Be Denied Due to DRAT Vacancies or Administrative Delays  ||  J&K&L HC: Failure to Frame Limitation Issue Not Fatal; Courts May Examine Limitation Suo Motu  ||  Bombay HC: Preventing Feeding Stray Dogs at Society or Bus Stop is Not 'Wrongful Restraint'  ||  Gujarat HC: Not All Injuries Reduce Earning Capacity; Functional Disability Must Be Assessed  ||  Delhi HC: Framing of Charges is Interlocutory and Not Appealable under Section 21 of NIA Act    

Shri Mukesh Harjibhai Patel vs. Acit - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (16 Feb 2022)

Where addition has been made on estimation basis, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of IT Act could be made qua such addition

MANU/IB/0049/2022

Direct Taxation

Present appeal is filed by the assessee against order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) relating to the assessment year 2010-11 against confirmation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act).

During the assessment proceedings, the assessee himself accepted that, an amount of Rs.4,79,000 from Malhar Dairy firm was an undisclosed income. Further, the assessee's business being in the nature of dairy and vegetable, the assessee would not be knowing that whether income from dairy firm was liable to tax or not. However, during the assessment proceedings, the assessee offered this as undisclosed income which has been confirmed in appeal before the learned CIT(A) and the issue has attained finality.

On examination of the facts on hand, it is apparent that the claim was neither mala fide nor false. It was under bona fide belief that, the income generated out of purchase and sales of dairy products are exempt from the income tax. The assessee in the assessment proceedings disclosed this fact and offered the same to tax. In these circumstances, the assessee fulfilled both the conditions to be outside the purview of Explanation (1) to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

In the present case, on account of bogus purchase, the learned CIT(A) has restricted addition to Rs.11,88,357 from Rs.43,53,429 on estimate basis. Such an estimation is made without any concrete material but on adhoc basis. High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Valimkbhai H. Patel has held that where addition has been made on estimation basis, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be made qua such addition. Appeal allowed.

Tags : PENALTY   CONFIRMATION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved