Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee faced penalties under section 271(1)(c) for concealment/inaccurate particulars and section 271B for delayed tax audit report for A.Y. 2012-13. For A.Y. 2015-16 to 2017-18, a 10% disallowance of meat purchases was made as non-genuine.
Held
The Tribunal deleted the 271(1)(c) penalty, holding that not every quantum addition attracts penal provisions. The 271B penalty was also deleted as it was a case of delayed, not non-filing, of the tax audit report. For the meat purchases, the disallowance was reduced to an estimated Rs.1,00,000/- per year, noting neither party fully discharged their onus.
Key Issues
Whether penalties under sections 271(1)(c) and 271B are justified for re-estimated profits and delayed tax audit reports, respectively. Also, whether the disallowance of meat purchases as non-genuine was appropriate.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c), 271B, 147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI (SMC
Date of hearing 23.12.2024 Date of pronouncement 23.12.2024 ORDER The instant batch of five cases involves single assessee herein, namely, Atiq Ahmed. All other relevant details thereof stand tabulated as under: Sl. Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Order Appealed against No. 1. 3673/Del/2024 Atiq Ahmed Income-tax CIT(A)-NFAC Delhi’s DIN for A.Y. 2012-13 Officer, Ward and Order No. 2(3)(4), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- Hapur 25/1065767179(1), dated 19.06.2024, involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 2. 3674/Del/2024 Atiq Ahmed Income-tax CIT(A)-NFAC Delhi’s DIN for A.Y. 2012-13 Officer, Ward and Order No. 2(3)(4), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- Hapur 25/1065768563(1), dated
19.06.2024, involving proceedings under section 271B. 3. 3677/Del/2024 Atiq Ahmed Income-tax CIT(A)-NFAC Delhi’s DIN for A.Y. 2015-16 Officer, Ward and Order No. 2(3)(4), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- Hapur 25/1065762292(1), dated 19.06.2024, involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144. 4. 3678/Del/2024 Atiq Ahmed Income-tax CIT(A)-NFAC Delhi’s DIN for A.Y. 2016-17 Officer, Ward and Order No. 2(3)(4), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- Hapur 25/1065760447(1), dated 19.06.2024, involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144. 5. 3679/Del/2024 Atiq Ahmed Income-tax CIT(A)-NFAC Delhi’s DIN for A.Y. 2017-18 Officer, Ward and Order No. 2(3)(4), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- Hapur 25/1065758480(1), dated 19.06.2024, involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
I now advert to assessee’s lead assessment year 2012-13 wherein he is aggrieved against the action of learned lower authorities levying sections 271(1)(c) and 271B proceedings imposing penalties of Rs.63,900/- and 1,50,000/-, on account of concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof and for non-filing of tax audit report, respectively.
The Revenue could hardly dispute in assessee’s 271(1)(c)
penalty appeal that the learned Assessing Officer had re-estimated his net profits @ 0.7% and therefore, going by CIT vs. Reliance 2 | P a g e Petroproducts (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC), I delete the impugned penalty levied against the appellant and allow his case in very terms as it is not each and every quantum addition which would attract the instant penal provision.
Coming to assessee’s second appeal ITA No. 3674/Del/2024 seeking to reverse section 271B penalty of Rs.1,50,000/-, imposed by learned lower authorities, it is noticed from the perusal of the assessment order itself dated 31.12.2019 that he had duly filed his belated tax audit report and therefore, it is an instance of delayed filing of tax audit report than that of non-filing thereof. I accordingly accept the assessee’s explanation stating the delay in filing of tax audit report on account of circumstances beyond its control and delete the penalty u/s. 271B amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-. This case ITA No. 3674/Del/2024 is allowed.
I now come to the assessee’s remaining three identical appeals in ITA Nos. 3677 to 3679/Del/2024 for assessment years 2015-16 to 2017-18 respectively wherein learned lower authorities have disallowed 10% of his meat purchases as non-genuine.
3 | P a g e
After vehement arguing on assessee’s legal grounds challenging validity of reopening proceedings, learned counsel does not press this issue. Rejected accordingly.
I now proceed to deal with the instant identical issue in all these three appeals wherein learned lower authorities have disallowed 10% of the purchases as non-genuine. It emerges that neither the assessee has been able to satisfactorily discharge his onus to proving genuineness of impugned meat purchases nor the department could pin point any specific defect therein. Faced with this situation, I hold that an estimated disallowance to Rs.1,00,000/- each in all these three appeals would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Ordered accordingly. Necessary computations shall follow. 9. This assessee’s appeals Nos. 3673 & 3674/Del/2024 are allowed and his remaining three appeals Nos. 3677 to 2679/Del/2024 are partly allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective files. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd December, 2024 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 23 December, 2024. 4 | P a g e