| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3728 (Jp-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271(1)(c)
Where assessee had raised contentions regarding lack of satisfaction for initiating the penalty proceedings while completing the assessment proceedings, there were relevant considerations which need to be examined and disposed of before the levy of penalty is confirmed, accordingly Tribunal set-aside the matter to CIT(A) to examine the various contentions so raised by assessee and decide the matter afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to assessee.
|
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Absence of recording of satisfaction - Undisclosed transaction found in the diary during survey -
A survey under section 133A was conducted at the business premises of assessee and a diary was found and impounded. As such diary belongs to firms and transaction recorded are pertained to firm. On going through the transaction recorded it was noticed that assessee had taken loans in cash from various persons and paid interest thereto. Assessee admitted during original assessment that credit entry shown in the diary were not shown in regular books of account. The partners of firm accepted that they were unable to get these cash creditors verified and thus accepted the same as undisclosed income of the assessee firm. AO held that assessee had concealed his income by not disclosing transaction recorded in dairy and imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c). Held: Where assessee had carried the matter in appeal before Tribunal in quantum proceedings and quantum additions as so claimed by assessee have been reduced and which forms the basis for levy of penalty, consequent quantum of penalty would also undergo a change, however, there was no finding recorded by CIT(A) in this regard. Assessee had raised contentions regarding lack of satisfaction for initiating the penalty proceedings while completing the assessment proceedings, there were relevant considerations which need to be examined and disposed of before the levy of penalty is confirmed. Accordingly, the matter was set aside to CIT(A) to examine the various contentions so raised by assessee and decide the matter afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to assessee.
Followed:Union of India v. M/s. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills & Commr. of Customs and Central Excise v. M/s. Lanco Industries Ltd. (2009) 13 SCC 448 (SC) : 2009 TaxPub(DT) 1731 (SC) Union of India & Ors. v. Dharmendra Textile Processors & Ors. (2008) 13 SCC 369 (SC) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 2320 (SC) Dilip N. Shroff v. Jt. CIT & Anr. (2007) 6 SCC 329 (SC) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1247 (SC) KC Builders & Anr. v. Asstt. CIT 2004 TaxPub(DT) 1323 (SC) Badri Prasad Ram Gopal Dall Mill v. The ITO, Ward 2 (2), Alwar. 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4540 (Jp-Trib)
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Matter remanded
A.Y. :
IN THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|