RAWAL PINDI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1053/DEL/2010Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 August 2016AY 2004-0510 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the additions confirmed by the CIT(A) were not a result of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was imposed on subjective satisfaction without fulfilling the necessary ingredients for initiating penalty proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee company's income was assessed with additions. The CIT(A) confirmed a portion of these additions, leading to penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee appealed against the penalty order.

What were the issues?

Whether the confirmed additions to income constitute concealment of particulars or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, warranting penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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, DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI J.S. REDDY & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Hardipender Singh, Advocate
For Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Singh, CIT DR and Shri F.R. Meena, Senior DR
Hearing: 25.07.2016

per month. But AO however observed that the assessee company has concocted the story when failed to produce the details of the salaries that assessee company has given jobwork charges of about Rs.27,000/- to one Shri Sushant Kumar who is working under Shri Chopra.

1.

15. Again, addition has been made when the assessee has failed to produce Shri Chopra for recording his statement who had already filed affidavit with the AO. When Shri Chopra already filed affidavit with the AO, his statement made during survey proceedings cannot be used without providing an opportunity of cross examination to the assessee. Even otherwise, AO without perusing the employee’s register, provident fund and ESI record proceeded on the basis of bald statement of Shri Chopra that he is not employee of the assessee company. So, we are of the considered view that apparently, this is also not a concealment of income or furnishing of false particulars in any manner.

15.

So, in view of what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that AO has failed to make out the case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income by the assessee rather it is a case of imposing penalty on the basis of subjective satisfaction without completing necessary ingredients to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Consequently, we hereby delete the penalty and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in open court on this 30th day of August, 2016.

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 →