ROYAL RUBBER WORKS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8065/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 July 2022AY 2015-164 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal deleted the penalty, holding that the assessee could not be accused of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal noted that the major part of the addition was deleted in the quantum appeal and the remaining amount was repaid.

What were the facts?

The assessee firm declared income and showed sundry creditors of Rs.88,97,485/-. The Assessing Officer added back Rs.34,34,837/- for unverifiable creditors and imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the addition sustained is minor and the amount was subsequently repaid, despite some creditors not responding to notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR

For Respondent: Ms. Indu Sen, Sr. DR
Hearing: 29.06.2022Pronounced: 15.07.2022

Appellant by Sh. K. Sampath, Advocate Sh. V. Rajakumar, Advocate Respondent by Ms. Indu Sen, Sr. DR Date of hearing 29.06.2022 Date of pronouncement 15.07.2022 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM:

This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 10.07.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, New Delhi, confirming the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2015-16.

2.

Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a partnership firm. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2015 declaring income of Rs.2,67,730/-. In course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer, on examination of the balance-sheet of the assessee, found that the assessee has shown sundry creditors of Rs.88,97,485/-. Noticing this, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to provide the complete details of sundry creditors along with confirmed copy of ledger account. As observed by Assessing Officer, the assessee could only furnish the name and address of the parties. As has been observed by the Assessing Officer, in response to the notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act, in some of the cases reply was received. Whereas, in some other cases no reply was received.

Thus, holding that the genuineness of the sundry creditors remained unverifiable, the Assessing Officer added back the amount of Rs.34,34,837/-. Based on such addition, the Assessing Officer initiated proceeding for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and ultimately passed an order imposing penalty of Rs.11,44,094/-. Against the penalty order so passed, the assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). While considering the appeal of the assessee, learned Commissioner (Appeals) found that while deciding the quantum appeal of the assessee, the Tribunal has deleted the amount of Rs.30,91,548/- out of the addition made by the Assessing Officer, while sustaining the addition to the extent of Rs.3,43,289/-. Accordingly, he confirmed penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition of Rs.3,43,289/-.

3.

We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. Undisputedly, the addition based on which the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was on account of sundry creditors. While deciding the quantum appeal of the assessee, the Tribunal has deleted the major part of the addition, accepting assessee’s submission that such amount was not credited in the books of account during the year. Addition of Rs.3,43,289/- was sustained only on the ground that it was credited to the books of account during the year.

4.

Before us, learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has accepted the sales and purchases.

He has further submitted that subsequently the amount was repaid. Thus, considering the quantum of addition sustained by the Tribunal and also the fact that assessee has paid back the amount to the creditors, we are of the view that the assessee cannot be accused of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Merely because no reply was received from the creditors, it cannot be presumed that they are non-genuine. Accordingly, we delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

5.

In the result, the appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15th July, 2022

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →