RAMESH CHANDER vs. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

ITA/261/2005HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01077513200508 November 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ramesh Chander Gupta, is appealing a decision by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the assessment year 1995-96. A survey under Section 133-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on August 5, 1994, revealed excess stock of Ist and 2nd Class bricks (28750 and 45280 units respectively) and a shortage of 3rd class tiles (63400 units). The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions of Rs. 44,380/- for the tile shortage and Rs. 44,383/- for the brick excess. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal. The ITAT partly allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the tile shortage, restricting the addition to Rs. 7,163/- by applying the Gross Profit (GP) rate. However, the ITAT upheld the addition for excess bricks. Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated, leading to a penalty of Rs. 23,740/-. The CIT(A) deleted this penalty, but the ITAT reversed the CIT(A)'s order, directing the penalty to be recomputed on the finally sustained addition.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Court found that the Tribunal had correctly reversed the order of the CIT(A) which had deleted the penalty. The Tribunal's finding that the addition was not based on an estimate but on actual physical verification of stock during the survey on August 5, 1994, was upheld. The Court noted that the assessee was found to have excess stock of first and second-class bricks which were not accounted for in the books of account, and the inventory was signed by the assessee. The Tribunal had also found that the AO had duly recorded satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings in the assessment order. The Court concluded that the assessee had failed to bring its case out of the ambit of the penal provision. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was not justified. The AO was directed to recompute the quantum of penalty on the basis of the amount of addition finally sustained by the Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed as no error could be pointed out in the Tribunal's findings, and an attempt to re-appreciate material on record was outside the domain of Section 260A.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that there had been concealment of income by the assessee? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the addition made by the AO was based on an estimate. The assessee also contended that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings, and confirmation of an addition does not automatically lead to the confirmation of a penalty. The assessee sought to prove that the mischief of Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that the addition was not based on an estimate but on actual physical verification of stock during the survey. The revenue argued that the assessee had failed to prove that the penalty provision was not attracted, especially in light of the findings of excess stock not accounted for in the books of account. The revenue relied on the ITAT's finding that the AO had duly recorded satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133-A,Section 271(1)(c),Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appeal No. 261 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- Income Tax Appeal No. 261 of 2005 Date of decision: 8.11.2010 Ramesh Chander Gupta --- Appellant Versus Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar and others --- Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. --- PRESENT:Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Savita Saxena, Govt. Standing Counsel for the respondents. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act’”) has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 31.8.2004, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, (SMC) (in short “the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 332/ASR/1999 relating to the assessment year 1995-96. Income Tax Appeal No. 261 of 2005 2 The point for consideration in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that there had been concealment of income by the assessee? Briefly stated the facts of the case as narrated in the app

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 133-A

All 26 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →