ASST CIT 16(2), THANE vs. A F FERGUSON & CO, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5224/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 November 2017AY 2009-104 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 affirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty for un-reconciled AIR information as the addition was already deleted by the Tribunal. For sundry creditors, the Tribunal held that there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, upholding the deletion of penalty.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A). The penalty was levied on additions made for un-reconciled AIR information and sundry creditors.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the underlying addition is deleted or when there is a difference of opinion regarding sundry creditors.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH “A” MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE S/SHRI G S PANNU (AM), & PAWAN SINGH,(JM)

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Shri Ketan Ved
Hearing: 30.11.2017Pronounced: 30.11.2017

PAN : AABFA5846M सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 30.11.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 30.11.2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER G S PANNU, A. M: This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld.CIT(A)-5, Mumbai, dated 10.8.2015 for the assessment year 2008-09 which is arising out of assessment order passed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c), dated 26.3.2014.

2.

The solitary issue in this appeal relates to the levy of penalty under section 271(1)( c) of the Act amounting to Rs.12,10,000/- which has since been deleted by the ld.CIT(A).

2 /M um /20 15 3. Pertinently, the relevant facts are that in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 12.12.2011 two additions were made, which are relevant for our purposes viz the addition on account of un-reconciled AIR information – Rs.54,89,270/- and on account of sundry creditors- Rs.4,25,438/-. It has been explained that in the quantum proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28.12.2012 deleted the addition on account of un- reconcile AIR information to the extent of Rs.23,08,301/-. Subsequently, vie order dated 26.3.2014, the AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act on the then subsisting addition on account of un-reconciled AIR information and on account of sundry creditors. The AO levied the penalty of Rs.12,02,030/- which equivalent to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on such income. This penalty has been deleted by the ld.CIT(A), against which the Revenue is in appeal before us.

4.

Before us, it has been pointed out that so far as the addition on account of un-reconciled AIR information is concerned, the entire addition has since been deleted by the Tribunal vide its order dated 17.10.2014 passed in and therefore the penalty has rightly been deleted by the ld.CIT(A). In so far as, the penalty with regard to the addition on account of sundry creditors of Rs.4,25,483/- is concerned, the ld.AR-assessee pointed out that the ld.CIT(A) gas deleted the penalty following the ratio of decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2004-05

5.

In this background, in so far as the deletion of penalty in relation to the addition on account of un-reconciled AIR information is concerned, the factual matrix brought out by the ld.AR-assessee has not been disputed by the ld.DR, therefore, to that extent the order of the ld.CIT(A) is hereby affirmed.

6.

So far as the penalty levied in relation to the addition of Rs.4,25,483/- on account of sundry creditors is concerned, the ld. DR pointed out that the addition was made during the assessment proceedings because the assessee had not treated the balances as income despite following the cash system of accounting. According to him the penalty was justifiably levied by the AO.

7.

On this aspect, we find that the ld.CIT(A) made no mistake in deleting the penalty as on similar circumstances, the Tribunal vide order dated 23.7.2014 passed in assessee’s case (supra) had deleted the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. As per the Tribunal, no penalty is leviable as there was no concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on this aspect. Even otherwise, we find that the addition on account of outstanding sundry creditors is a result of mere difference of opinion between the assessee and the Revenue and this is not a fit case for levy of penalty for 4 /M um /20 15 concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of any income within the meaning of section 271(1)( c ) of the Act. Thus, on this aspect also, in our view, the ld.CIT(A) rightly deleted the penalty.

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 →