C.I.T.HISAR vs. M/S DABWALI TRANSPORT COMPANY

ITA/872/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093851201015 March 2011Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed to the High Court against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which set aside a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was based on disallowance of labour expenses claimed by the assessee, M/s Dabwali Transport Company, for the assessment year 2000-01. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses for want of evidence and because charges paid were allegedly at a lesser rate. The CIT(A) reduced the addition, and further appeal reduced the disallowance. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings, which were initially upheld by the CIT(A) but later set aside by the ITAT.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that mere inability of the assessee to furnish evidence in support of claimed expenses, which led to their disallowance, does not automatically imply that the assessee consciously furnished incorrect particulars. The Court noted the ITAT's finding that the assessee's books of account were duly audited, the declared profit was accepted for the previous year, and a substantial part of the expenses was explained. The Tribunal had analyzed the facts and concluded that there was no conscious act by the assessee leading to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Court found that whether an inference of concealment or furnishing of incorrect particulars could be drawn was a question of fact, and the Tribunal had made such an analysis. Therefore, the High Court found no substantial question of law arising for consideration and dismissed the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in cancelling the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) without appreciating that the additions/disallowance made which formed basis of penalty had been upheld not only by the Ld. ITAT but also by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 15.10.2007. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT was justified in cancelling the penalty by ignoring the fact that the assessee had consciously concealed its income by deliberately claiming excessive expenses which remained unsupported/substantiated and were not found to be genuine in quantum appeal proceedings by the Ld. ITAT? Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that since the disallowance of expenses was upheld up to the High Court, the burden was on the assessee to prove the expenses were claimed on a valid basis. In the absence of such proof, it could be presumed that the assessee consciously furnished incorrect particulars to conceal income by deliberately claiming excessive expenses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.872 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.3.2011 Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. M/s Dabwali Transport Company. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. K.K. Mehta, Sr.Standing counsel for the Revenue. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1.

This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh dated 24.8.2009 in I.T.A. No.596/Chd/2009 for the assessment year 2000-01 proposing following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in cancelling the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) without appreciating that the additions/disallowance made which formed basis of penalty had been upheld not only by the Ld. ITAT but also by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 15.10.2007. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT was justified in canceling the penalty by ignoring the fact that the assessee

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 24,918 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →