Case Law Details
Case Name : Dy. CIT Vs M/s. Nepa Limited (ITAT Indore)
Related Assessment Year : 2003-04
Courts :
All ITAT ITAT Indore
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
Decision of Income tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench in case of DCIT v. NEPA Limited (ITA 683/Ind/2013)
In this case the Assessee was a Public Sector undertaking and had omitted to add back Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts. During the Assessment the mistake was noticed and the claim was conceded and disallowance of provision was made. However the learned AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that if the case would not have selected for scrutiny the Assessee would have succeede
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
even if revenue moves in SC against HC judgement then know the position of interpretation of laws.
CAs are generally not allowed in the matter of interpretation of laws why that way SC rendered judgement NTT where it quashed the NTT Act itself is known fact there was big furor and indignation in CA circles;
Revenue panel lawyers may have opinion against this judgement, but all laws are based on natural justice only so there is a hearing procedure in courts and the petitioner can move to higher forum of judiciary why ? doctrine of natural justice only prevails, that way we examine legislative intent too, after all law makers are not sovereign like a citizen Sirs!
sorry
tax guru is not guru in laws as laws are always evolving.
if there is any doubt in the ITAT decision let it move to MP High court then see what the revenue gets !
judgement is right from the fact prosecutor cannot be the judge in his own matter.
Mens rea need to be proved is mandatory and the onus is on prosecution.
here AO passed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which action by AO is not right at all.
This was not a mistake ? It must be a deliberate mistake or even a fraud. The assessee must have also claimed write off of bad debts in addition to provision for bad debts. So how come it is taken as unintentional.
Provision for Income Tax must have been short and profit inflated of a listed PSB.
PSB’s have huge resources and engage leading Tax Consultants. Penalty would have been more appropriate.
In fact IT Act is a civil law and cetsinly not criminal law; if criminal law naturally matter goes to magistrates as the first forum, AO is just some kind of police man that is all.
Police man cannot convict one without proving mens rea – guilty mind element on the accused.
conviction isonly duty of the court and any AO that need to be noted.
that means policeman prosecution has the onus before appropriate criminal court unlike in civil issues like tax payment, as the term ‘concealment’ is a criminal accusation on assessee..
AOs need to be very careful not to overstep, if they do possible damages might befall on him individually if guilty mind is not proved without any shadow of doubt please is my opinion
It is a settled crime law..whowever prosecutes the onus lies on the per prosecutor certainly not on accused/prpsecuted. So Guj judgement reliance by ITAT, Indore is right, if Delhi HC is contradictory then Gujarat HC judgement is correct per criminal jurisprudence.
Penalty is on mens rea base and always prosecutor need to prove Mens Rea even Rajasthan HC held and was confirmed by hon SC.
while prosecuting and levying penalty before mens rea is proved by prosection is Null and void and the prosection would be euther admonished or fined by the hon court.
delhi HC facts of matter need to examined before interpreting is my view1