Delhi HC: Woman's Right to a Shared Household Does Not Allow Indefinite Occupation of In-Laws' Home  ||  Delhi HC: Director Disputes in a Company Do Not Qualify as Genuine Hardship to Delay ITR Filing  ||  Delhi HC: ECI Cannot Resolve Internal Disputes of Unrecognised Parties; Civil Court Must Decide  ||  Bombay High Court: Senior Citizens Act Cannot be Misused to Summarily Evict a Son  ||  Chhattisgarh HC: Service Tax Refund Can't Be Denied on Limitation When Payment Was Made During Probe  ||  Supreme Court: If Tribunal Ends Case For Unpaid Fees, Parties Must Seek Recall Before Using S.14(2)  ||  SC: Article 226 Writs Jurisdiction Cannot be Used to Challenge Economic or Fiscal Reforms  ||  Supreme Court: Hostile Witness Testimony Can't Be Discarded; Consistent Parts Remain Valid  ||  Supreme Court: GPF Nomination in Favour of a Parent Becomes Invalid Once the Employee Marries  ||  Supreme Court: Candidate Not Disqualified if Core Subject Studied Without Exact Degree Title    

Goldstar Finvest P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (28 Apr 2023)

When the entire addition has been made on the basis of estimation, penalty levied is not sustainable

MANU/IU/0332/2023

Direct Taxation

In the basis of completed assessment framed under Section 143(3) read with 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) determining the total income at Rs.4,63,769 by making addition of the commission income @ 0.15% in case of assessee being an entry provider, penalty proceedings were initiated by way of issuance of notice under section 274 read with section 271 of the IT Act.

Declining the contentions raised by the assessee that very initiation of penalty proceedings were bad in law as valid notice has not been issued to the assessee, the Assessing Officer (AO) reached the conclusion that the assessee has concealed correct nature/particulars of its income and thereby levied the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee carried the matter before the Learned CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has confirmed the penalty levied by the AO by dismissing the appeal.

Since the AO has failed to initiate the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act by issuing the valid notice, penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the assessee has never been informed about the charges framed to initiate the penalty proceedings through statutory notice. Furthermore, undisputedly entire addition in present case was made/confirmed by the AO as well as the learned CIT(A) on the basis of estimation and guess work on the alleged bogus entry provided by the assessee during the year under consideration initially @ 100% by the AO, which was reduced by the learned CIT(A) to 2% of the turnover, which was further reduced by the Tribunal to 0.15% of total bogus entries provided.

When the entire addition has been made on the basis of estimation, penalty levied by the AO and sustained by the learned CIT(A) is not sustainable. So when the basis for initiation of penalty proceedings have been altered or modified by the appellate authority the AO cannot proceed with the penalty proceedings as has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT vs. Fortune Technocomps (P) Ltd.

When entire addition in this case is on estimation basis and at no point of time Revenue Authorities have reached the specific conclusion that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income rather made the addition on the basis of information received from Sales Tax Department without conducting any independent enquiry as to the alleged bogus purchases, the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the Learned CIT(A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence ordered to be deleted. The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Tags : PENALTY   LEVY   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved