Income Tax : The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when errors are voluntarily corrected during assessment. ...
Income Tax : A summary of key penalties under the Income Tax Act for AY 2026-27, covering defaults from late filing and non-payment to misrepor...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held penalty u/s 271(1)(c) unsustainable as 54F exemption failed due to builder delay, not taxpayer’s fault. Full dis...
Income Tax : Understand why an income-tax penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the charge isn't specified as concealment or inaccurate...
Income Tax : Learn how taxpayers can defer income tax penalty proceedings when quantum additions are under appeal. Understand legal grounds and...
Income Tax : The Committee recommends that the scope of Section 273B should be suitably enlarged to provide that penalty for concealment of inc...
Income Tax : Transfer of passive infrastructure (PI) assets under a court-approved scheme of demerger without consideration qualified as a gift...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained when identical facts in earlier years led to deletion. ...
Income Tax : Smt. Subbalakshmi Kurada Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In , the ITAT Bangalore deleted penalty under Section 271(1)(c), holding that me...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that penalty proceedings are invalid where the Assessing Officer does not specify whether the charge is concealment ...
Income Tax : The issue was whether incorrect tax treatment amounts to concealment. The Tribunal held that mere wrong classification in books do...
Income Tax : Section 270AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) inter alia provides that w.e.f. 1 st April, 2017, the Assessing Officer, on an...
Thomas Garbarek Vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) – ITAT held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act should not be leviable where the assessees have been able to establish their bonafide and innocence. A mere omission or negligence would not constitute a deliberate act of suppression of income so as to trigger levy of penalty, unless there is a direct attempt to hide an income from the knowledge of the income tax authorities. In particular relevance to assessees is the observation of the Tribunal that ‘bona fide belief can also be substantiated by circumstantial evidence when possibility of documentary evidence cannot be expected’.
Sanjay Enterprises (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)- In the instant case, surrender made by the assessee during the remand proceedings, when the assessee was confronted with the statement of Shri Sanjay Rastogi recorded on oath on 27.9.2005, has never been retracted either during the reassessment proceedings or during the penalty proceedings at any stage. The assessee has not even attempted to establish its bona fide nor submitted any explanation before the AO during the penalty proceedings. Thus, in the light of view taken in the aforesaid two decisions relied upon by the ld. DR, we are of the opinion that the ld. CIT(A) rightly upheld the levy of penalty.
In T. Ashok Pai v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 11 the Supreme Court observed that if the explanation given by an assessee is taken to be bona fide, the question of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act would not arise. Although the findings arrived at in assessment proceedings would constitute good material for penalty proceedings, yet in penalty proceedings, the matter has to be looked at differently since the consequences for the assessee would be different, and penal. Therefore, the rule of strict construction would apply.
CIT Vs. Sumangal Overseas Ltd. (Delhi HC) – The Court held that where no appeal is preferred by the assessee against the quantum order, yet, while deciding the penalty appeal, it is open to the Tribunal to look into the transaction to see as to whether the claim was bona fide or it was bogus and result of falsehood. From that angle, when the Tribunal examined the matter, it found that on the facts of this case when advances given to the suppliers were not written off as irrecoverable, the same was allowable under Section 28 of the Act. A trading loss has a wider connotation than a bad debt. A bad debt may also be a trading loss, but a trading loss need not necessarily be a bad debt. There may be a bad debt which may not fall within the purview of Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, but may well be regarded as one eligible for deduction incurred in the course of carrying on business will come under that category and will naturally enter into computing the net total income as the real profit chargeable to tax cannot be arrived at without setting off legitimate trading loss.
CIT Vs. Kas Movie Pvt. Ltd (Delhi HC) – For the purpose of claiming benefit under Section 80HHF of the Act, ownership of goods is not essential as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sea Pearl Industries and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 247 ITR 578. Thus, when two views were possible and the assessee made the claim on the basis of advice of the consultants, it was not a case where the penalty should have been imposed.
CIT Vs. Harnarai (Delhi High Court) – In the absence of any material on record to suggest that it was bogus or untrue. It is further evident that there was neither any detection nor any information in the possession of the Revenue which might lead to a conclusion that there was a detection by the Revenue of concealment. Accordingly, the question of law framed is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee.
CIT Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (Delhi High Court) A.O. having failed to record a finding that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars, the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act was a complete non- starter. This finding of fact has been affirmed by the Tribunal and we find no reason to disagree with the same. A mere erroneous claim made by an assessee, though under a bonafide belief that, it was a claim which was maintainable in law, cannot with more, lead to an imposition of penalty.
ACIT Vs M/s. Khanna & Annadhanam (ITAT Delhi)- Briefly, the controversy is that assessee is a firm of Chartered Accountants and carrying on profession as such. During the year the assessee had shown a sum of Rs. 1,15,70,000/- in the capital account of the partners as received from an international consultancy firm Deloitte Touche Tohmatu International (DTTI). The amount was not reflected by the assessee in its P&L a/c but directly credited to partners accounts.
ACIT Vs. Sumit P. Bhattacharya (ITAT Mumbai)- Assessee was an employee of M/s Procter and Gamble India Ltd., which is a group company of Procter and Gamble of USA. The company had given appreciation rights to the assessee. As regards the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmender Textiles, 306 ITR 307, we find that CIT(A) as well as ITAT have not cancelled penalty on the ground of mens rea, therefore, the judgment of the Apex Court in this case is not applicable to the facts of the case under consideration. Contrary to that, the case under consideration is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. Cited supra. In the light of above discussion, we hereby cancel the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
If two views are possible than Assessing Officers should take the one favourable to the Assessee and penalty for concealment cannot be levied. CIT Vs Mahavir Irrigation Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court)- In this case, there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its Return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false.
