DEBEN THAOSEN,HAFLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SILCHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 247/GTY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 December 2019AY 2014-152 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 held that disallowance of an exemption claim, even if not appealed against, does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Such a situation does not constitute concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2014-15. The penalty was imposed because a claim for exemption under Section 10(26) was disallowed during the assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied solely on the basis of a disallowed exemption claim, without any evidence of concealment or inaccurate particulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 10(26)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GAUHATI BENCH “E” COURT AT KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

PER BEMCH:- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Shillong’s order dated 25.06.2018 passed in case No.CIT(A)/Shillolng/10040/2017-18 involving penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. Heard learned departmental representative.

2.

For the reasons stated in assessee’s condonation petition / affidavit dated 15.04.2019 coupled with his medical history and on account of the Revenue’s no objection, we condone the impugned seventeen days delay in filing of the taxpayer’s appeal. The same is now taken up for adjudication on merits.

ITA No.247/Gau/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deben Thaosen Vs. ITO Wd-1, Silchar . Page 2

3.

It transpires during the course of hearing and with the able assistance of learned departmental representative that both the lower authorities have levied the impugned penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on account of taxable income of ₹8,63,569/- held assessable after denying sec. 10(26) exemption. The assessee’s only case is that he has raised a bona fide claim of exemption which was eventually declined during the course of assessment which attained finality since no appeal was preferred against the same. We find no reason to sustain the impugned penalty imposed on account of the mere fact of the assessee having raised sec.10(26) exemption claim which was ultimately disallowed. The same can neither be treated concealment nor that of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Be that as it may, hon'ble apex court’s landmark judgment in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) settled the law long back that each and every disallowance(s) / addition(s) made during the course of former proceedings does not necessarily attract section 271(1)(c) penalty. We therefore accept the assessee’s sole substantive grievance in same terms.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court 13/12/2019 (A.L.Saini) (S.S.Godara) (Accountant Member) Judicial Member) Kolkata, *Dkp "दनांकः- 13/12/2019 कोलकाता/। आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant-Deben Thaosen, Sengya Sombudhan Raji Sarkari Bagan, Halflong N.C. Hills, Assam-788820

2.

""यथ" /Respondent-ITO Ward-1, R.Nol.21, Aayakar Bhawan, PWD Road, Silghar-788001 3. संबं*धत आयकर आयु-त / Concerned CIT Guahati 4. आयकर आयु-त- अपील / CIT (A) Guahati 5. 0वभागीय "3त3न*ध, आयकर अपील"य अ*धकरण, / DR, ITAT, Guahati 6. गाड7 फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, // Sr. Private Secretary, Head of Office/DDO आयकर अपील"य अ*धकरण, गूवाहाठ" ।

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 →