Explore a landmark Income Tax Appellate Tribunal case from Chennai where a penalty under Section 271D of the Income-tax Act was successfully deleted. The tribunal found that the undisclosed income, as declared in the block return, remained the assessed income. Discover the rationale behind the tribunal’s decision, emphasizing the genuine nature of credits, the agricultural background of creditors, and the firm’s non-professional management. Learn how the tribunal concluded that the acceptance of cash loans was due to business exigencies, establishing a reasonable cause for the exemption from penalties. #IncomeTax #LegalCase #ChennaiTribunal
In the case of CIT v. Suraj Bhan [2007] 159 Taxman 26 Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High held that when an assessee files a revised return showing higher income and gives an explanation that he offered higher income to buy peace of mind and avoid litigation, penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of higher income having been subsequently declared.
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja J.- The present appeals are filed under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue, against the order dated July 29, 2004, in I.T.A. Nos. 2075 and 2076 (Mds)/96 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “C” Bench, raising the following substantial question of law:
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was a material irregularity in the notice issued to the assessee under section 34 and dated 28th February, 1958, and if so, whether such irregularity vitiated the proceedings taken under the said notice ?”
the Tribunal was right in holding that a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- representing the value of technical know-how is liable to tax under the head Long Term Capital Gain the context of Section 45 read with Section 55 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The doctrine of fairness also is now considered to be a relevant factor for construing a statute. In a case of this nature where the effect of a beneficent statute was sought to be extended keeping in view the fact that the benefit was already availed of by the agriculturalists of tobacco in Guntur, it would be highly unfair if the benefit granted to them is taken away,
Yes. As discussed supra. A return of production, clearance and duty paid in the prescribed manner, is a statutory requirement. In the absence of a specific reference in Section 32E to ER1/ER3 i.e. monthly/quarterly returns prescribed under Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, since the ‘declaration’ filed by a small scale manufacturer also contains the basic particulars of estimated production and clearances though not the duty paid, as the product is totally exempt, and keeps the Department aware of the bona fide existence of the applicant, the yearly declaration can be deemed to serve the purpose of ‘return’, in so far as Sec. 32E(1) of the Central Excise Act is concerned.
HC held that Revenue is to be definitely restrained in terms of Section 205 of the Act from enforcing any demand on the assessee-petitioner insofar as the demand with reference to the amount of tax which had been deducted by the tenant of the assessee in the present case, and assuming that the tenant had not remitted the amount to the Central Government. The only course open to the Revenue is to recover the amount from the very person who has deducted and not from the petitioner.
If we look at the scheme for the provision of deduction of tax at source, it becomes obvious that such person is acting on behalf of the Revenue, i.e.,as an agent of the Revenue. In fact, the person is enabled statutorily to make deduction and remit the amount to the Central Government, though in the instant case, the person who has deducted the amount may be the tenant or lessee of the petitioner and there is such inter se relationship as between the two,
The apex court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa had long ago settled the law that penalty is not to be ordinarily imposed unless the party either acted deliberately in defiance of law and was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of its obligations. Penalty will also not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so.
