Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals arise from penalty orders levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on quantum additions made during a survey. The additions mainly involved subjective issues of unsecured loans and trade turnover, for which the assessee had provided evidence that was rejected.
Held
The Tribunal held that quantum additions do not automatically imply concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied merely on the basis of additions made without establishing the conditions for penalty.
Key Issues
Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied solely on the basis of quantum additions made in assessments, despite the assessee providing evidence for the additions.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c), 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2012-13 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Bhavna Jain, Vs Income Tax Officer, W/o Sunil Jain, Outside Barsi Gate, Ward-1, Hansi, District-Hisar, Hisar, Haryana-125033 Haryana-125001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AASPJ7764L Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 13.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 13.05.2025 ORDER These assessee’s twin appeals & 1033/Del/2025, for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14, arise against the CIT(A), Central NER, Guwahati’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1071652258(1) & ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2024-25/1071652495(1) dated 28.12.2024, in proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
The Revenue vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have rightly levied the impugned section 271(1)(c) penalty(ies) in the & 1033/Del/2025 Bhavna Jain assessee’s hands based on the various quantum additions made in the twin assessments framed in her case during a survey conducted on 02.09.2014. It could hardly dispute the clinching fact that almost all the impugned quantum addition mainly involves subjective issues of unsecured loans, trade turnover etc. wherein the assessee filed her evidence inter alia explaining the source thereof etc. which stood rejected in the course of assessment.
That being the clinching identical factual position emerging from the case file, I hereby quote CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) to conclude that each and every quantum addition would not ipso facto involve the impugned section 271(1)(c) penalty of concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The impugned penalty forming subject matter of adjudication in both these assessment years are hereby deleted.
These assessee’s twin appeals & 1033/Del/2025 are allowed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 13/05/2025.