SHIRPUR GOLD REFINERY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 9(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2827/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 December 2015AY 2001-023 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 no penalty could be levied under Section 271(1)(c) when there was no tax leviable on the additions made, especially for the assessment year 2001-02. Mere disallowance of expenditure does not automatically warrant a penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in gold manufacturing and sales, had its assessment reopened. The Assessing Officer disallowed administrative and interest expenses, considering them pre-operative. Consequently, a penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(c).

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when no tax is payable on the additions made. Whether mere disallowance of expenditure constitutes concealment of income for penalty purposes.

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(2)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, “E”, BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM

Hearing: 12/10/2015Pronounced: 16/12/2015

O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- Mumbai, dated 6-2-2003, for the assessment years 2001-02, in the matter of imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act.

2.

Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Brief facts of the care are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing, export and sale of gold. During the year under consideration originally the assessment was framed u/s.143(3), thereafter the AO reopened the assessment and disallowed the expenditure incurred on administrative and interest on the plea that manufacturing activity did not commence during the year, therefore, expenditures are in the nature of pre-operative expenses. It was contended before the AO 2 that assessee was already in the business of gold and even during the year under consideration the company had turnover of Rs.18.98 lakhs, hence, it cannot be said that business was not commenced and that reassessment was framed after change of opinion. Even during the preceding year the assessee had returned substantial income, therefore, it cannot be said that assessee had incurred administrative and interest expenses before commencement of business. However, the AO did not agree with the assessee’s contention for levy of penalty which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

3.

It was further submitted that in this case loss is reduced to NIL income and therefore under Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c), no penalty can be levied u/s.271(1)(c) in the present case for A.Y.2001-02, as the amendment is effective from 01.04.2003 i.e. from A.Y.2003-04 and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Virtual Soft Systems Ltd., 289 ITR 83. Ld. AR also placed on record order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assesmsnet year 2007-08, wherein similar disallowance was deleted and the order of the Tribunal was confirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in ITA No.2607/2011, dated 13-3-2013.

4.

We have considered rival contentions and found from the record that during the year under consideration the assessee has filed its return of income at a loss of Rs.84.16 lakhs. Scrutiny assessment order was framed u/s.143(3), thereafter assessment was reopened and income was assessed at Nil. With respect to the disallowance of expenses, the AO levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c). When there is no tax leviable with respect to the addition made, no penalty is leviable in terms of decision of the

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 →