Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeal was filed against an order imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2006-07. The additions were made on two counts: purchases from related parties and disallowance of claimed loss due to rejection of books of accounts.
Held
The Tribunal held that the disallowances were made on an ad-hoc/estimation basis without sufficient evidence. It was not established that the assessee had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars, thus the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly imposed when disallowances were made on an ad-hoc basis without establishing concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c), 40A(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg
आदेश/ORDER
The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 10.05.2024 arising out of the order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 2006-07.
None has appeared on behalf of the assessee despite the notice. A perusal of the file reveals that on earlier dates also no- one has appeared on behalf of the assessee. Under the circumstances, it appears that the assessee is no more interested in prosecuting his appeal by personal appearance or through his counsel.
Adjournment application has been filed on behalf of the ld. D.R. stating therein that she was not well. Identical type of application has been filed in all the cases fixed for today. It will not be appropriate to adjourn all the matters. Since there is not any complicated issue involved in this appeal, hence, the matter is being decided after going through the records.
The Assessing Officer in this case had levied the penalty on the basis of addition made in the assessment order. In the assessment order, the additions were made on two counts. Firstly that the assessee had made purchases from borrowed funds from related parties but the assessee failed to show that the said purchases were at market rate, therefore, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 40A(2) and made disallowance @ 5% of the purchases on adhoc basis out of the purchases made from related parties. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee had not properly prepared the books of accounts, he therefore, also disallowed the loss claimed by the assessee of Rs. 10,95,135/-.
A perusal of the assessment order would reveal that in this case, the disallowances were made by the Assessing Officer on adhoc/estimation basis. Firstly 5% of purchases made from related parties were disallowed without any evidence on the file that the assessee’s purchases were not actually at market rates or that assessee in this respect has concealed the income. Similarly in respect of disallowance of loss, the said disallowance has been made because of rejection of books of accounts but there were no evidences on the file that the assessee’s claim of loss was wrong or false. Under the circumstances, it is not established that the assessee has concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income for the purpose of evasion of tax. Therefore, the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not attracted in this case. The impugned penalty is therefore ordered to be deleted.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.