DCIT-5(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. MARUTI INOX (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN M/S SANSANI STEEL PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5226/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 March 2021AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, deleting the penalty. It reasoned that the disallowance was made on an estimated basis, and the assessee had produced purchase vouchers and made payments through banking channels, thus not being guilty of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2011-12. The assessee's income was enhanced due to disallowance of expenses claimed on accommodation entries of bogus purchases, which was later restricted by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when additions are made on an estimated basis and the assessee has produced supporting documents and made payments through banking channels.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 148,Section 143(3)

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, “D” Bench, Mumbai

For Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle
Hearing: 11.03.2021Pronounced: 11.03.2021

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the Revenue is against order's of learned CIT-A dated 10.6.2019 wherein following penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act has been deleted. Assessment year amount of penalty 2011-12 Rs. 8,84,805/-

2.

Brief facts of the case leading to levy of penalty for AY 2011-12, the assessee had e-filed a return of income on 30/09/2011 declaring total income at Rs.14,51,200/-. Subsequently, the case was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act, on the basis of the information received from the DGIT (Investigation) that the assessee is a beneficiary of the accommodation entries provided by some of the MVAT [Maharashtra Value Added Tax] dealers, who have indulged in issuing bogus sale/purchase bills without giving actual delivery of goods and materials from the hawala dealers. An assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 determining an income at Rs. 2,30,01,010/- was concluded

2 M/s. Maruti Inox (India) Pvt. Ltd. on 10/03/2014. In the assessment order, the AO made an addition of Rs. 2,15,49,808/- to the total income of the assessee by disallowing the expenses claimed by the assessee-company on account of accommodation entries of bogus purchases. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who restricted the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchase amount. The AO who had initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income earlier has levied a penalty of Rs. 8,84,805A u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 26/03/2018.

3.

Upon assessee’s appeal learned CIT(A) deleted the penalty holding that addition is only on estimate basis hence penalty is not sustainable. He also referred to several case laws.

4.

Against this order revenue is in appeal before us.

5.

We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the records. As clear from the facts recorded above disallowance has been made on an estimated basis on account of the non-production of suppliers before the assessing officer. The purchase vouchers were duly produced and the payments were through banking channel. In these backgrounds in our considered opinion assessee cannot be visited with the regours of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As a matter of fact on many occasions on similar circumstances in quantum proceedings the disallowance itself has been deleted. In our considered opinion on the facts and circumstances of the case assessee cannot be said to have been guilty of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard we draw support from the decision of a larger bench of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steels Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26) where in it was held that the authority may no t levy the penalty if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious.

3 M/s. Maruti Inox (India) Pvt. Ltd.

6.

We farther note that tax effect in this case is below the limit fixed by CBDT for filing appeals before ITAT. The revenue has tried to make out a case that since the addition was made pursuant to information from sales tax deptt, this penalty appeal falls in the exception carved out in the CBDT Circular regarding appeals arising out of additions made pursuant to information from outside agencies. We are of the opinion that this plea is not tenable inasmuch as once revenue accepts that penalty is levied on outside agency information, the penalty levied will have no legs to stand.

7.

In the background of aforesaid discussion and precedent we uphold the order's of Ld CIT(A) and delete the levy of penalty.

8.

In the result revenues 's appeal is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on 11.3.2021.

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 →