PARAMOUNT BLANKETS PRIVATE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-3, PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6869/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2023AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in not providing a finding on the additional evidence filed by the assessee. The issue was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for reconsideration of the additional evidence and a decision on merit.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee failed to appear, and the appeal was decided based on the Revenue's arguments.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in not admitting and considering additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A when deciding the penalty appeal.

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(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, DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

Hearing: 11.04.2023Pronounced: 04.05.2023

O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The assessee has come in appeal against the order dated 28.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Karnal (hereinafter referred as “learned First Appellate Authority” or in short “FAA”) in Appeal no. IT/93/E/KNL/2018-19, for the assessment year 2015-16, arising out of the penalty order dated 21.06.2018 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the “Act”), passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Panipat (hereinafter referred in short as “Ld. AO”).

2.

Heard and perused the record.

3.

None has appeared for the assessee. The notices issued are received back with the report that there is no such company at the given address. Arguments of learned DR were heard, who supported the findings of learned tax authorities below.

4.

It can be appreciated that assessee has raised a question of fact that learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in not admitting the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A. It can be observed that in para 3.1 while reproducing the submissions of AR in sub-para 5, the Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned of the fact that copy of Audited Annual Accounts of the depositor company Uttam Wollen Pvt. Ltd. And copy of bank accounts were filed along with application under Rule 46A.

However, without making any comment on the additional evidence, the learned CIT(Appeals) has observed that “3.2 Findings I have examined the facts of the case and the submissions made by the assessee. In the case of the appellant, an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- had been made after the assessee could not prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of unsecured loan said to have been raised from M/s Uttam Woolens Pvt. Ltd. The assessee in fact, surrendered the said amount at that stage. The appellant has sought to state that the details of unsecured loan with copies of bank account PAN and proof of ITR filed was Submitted and that the identity, capacity to make the transaction and genuineness 'of the transaction was proved. However, it may be noted that mere submission of the said documents does not establish the genuineness of the said transaction nor does it have evidentiary value. If the transaction was genuine, there was no cause to surrender the same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.P. Madhusudhan Vs. CIT (2001) 118 Taxman 324 has held that when the assessee offered an amount of taxation as additional income, the AO was justified in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. In view of the said reasoning, I confirm the penalty levied in this case.”

6.

It can be appreciated that Ld. AO has passed penalty order primarily concluding that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars with regard to unsecured loan. The Bench is of the considered opinion that while sustaining the observation of Ld. AO, that the documents produced to establish the genuineness of loan does not establish genuineness of such transaction and they did not have evidentiary value, the learned CIT(Appeal) has fallen in error in not giving any finding with regard additional evidence which is material to examine the question of fact that if there was failure on the part of assessee to furnish accurate particulars In the light of same, the issue is restored to the file of learned CIT(Appeals) to consider the additional evidence of assessee and then give a finding on merit. An opportuinty of hearing on additional evidence be also given to the assessee. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on 04.05.2023.

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 →