Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a security services provider, faced assessment and penalty proceedings for multiple assessment years due to non-filing of returns. The company was liquidated and closed, and it was submitted that they lacked adequate records. The Assessing Officer (AO) made estimated additions and imposed a penalty.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It was held that penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when additions are based on estimates. The additions made were below Rs. 50 lakhs, and several judicial precedents supported this view.
Key Issues
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be imposed when additions are made on estimate basis, especially when the estimated income does not surpass Rs. 50 lakhs.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c), 147, 148, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & HON’BLE SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr.Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Revenue by : Ms.R.Anita, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 17.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of : 26.03.2025 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M : S. Appeal AYs Appellant CIT(A) Order Details Respondent No. Nos. A B C D E F DIN & Order Power Security Corp Pvt Ltd, No.ITBA / NFAC / S / ITA-1863 / 1 2013-14 250 / 2024-25 New No.18, Chny / 2024 Old No.22, /1064270562(1) Income Tax dated 22.04.2025 Officer, Lake Area, 1st Cross Street, DIN & Order Corp Ward-5(2), Chennai. Nungambakkam, No.ITBA / NFAC / S / ITA-1851 / 2 2014-15 Chennai–34. 250 / 2024-25 Chny / 2024 [PAN: AAGCP2703C] /1064270777(1) dated 22.04.2025 Page - 1 - of 8 DIN & Order No.ITBA / NFAC / S / ITA-1864 / 3 2015-16 250 / 2024-25 Chny / 2024 /1064271009(1) dated 22.04.2025 DIN & Order No.ITBA / ITA-1865 / NFAC / S / 250 / 2024- 4 2016-17 Chny / 2024 25 / 1064271181(1) dated 22.04.2025 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 14 days in all the four appeals, in filing before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is small organization providing security services and has no qualified accounting professionals to handle its tax matters as also that it has to travel frequently outstations for business needs. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. The assesse submitted that there will not be case of any non- compliance now. We have considered the justification put forth by the assesse and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR did not pose any serious objections to the delay. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 We have noted that imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is seminal to all the above four appeals and hence they are adjudicated by this common order for the purposes of convenience. The facts and figures for AY-2013-14 are being taken as lead year for adjudication. As Page - 2 - of 8 admittedly facts are identical for all the years, and hence the decision for AY-2013-14 shall apply to AY-2014-15 to AY-2016-17 mutatis mutandis.
4.0 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee informed that the company under consideration is now liquidated and formaly closed. The Ld. AO was in receipt of information that the assessee had transacted amounts of money aggregating to Rs. 5,00,39,970/- on account of contractor payments, professional technical fees and rent. No return of income was filed and hence action u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 was taken. In response to notice of the Ld.AO the assessee had submitted that it has discontinued its operations and was not in the possession of adequate records to file return of income or any further information. Reference was also made to assessee’s contemporaneous adverse health issues. The Ld. AO recorded that department has initiated action for restoration of company’s name in the