Concealment penalty deleted. Assessee wasn’t habitual defaulter, surrendered to buy peace

Concealment penalty deleted as assessee was not habitual defaulter, made surrender only to buy peace and did not contest the issue further in quantum proceedings 

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3254 (2020) (02) ITAT

In the instant case, the appeal was filed by the appellant assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the ground that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was bad in law.

The assessee was an individual engaged in the business of trading of clothes. In the year under consideration, the subject matter of contention was the surrender made by the assessee out of commission expenses claimed to have been paid to different persons.

During the proceedings before the Tribunal, the assessee was required to address whether he was a habitual defaulter. It was stated in response thereto that it was the first time that the assessee was visited with penalty and it was his submission that the surrender was made only to buy peace and it is not a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee in terms of surrender did not contest the issue further in the quantum proceedings under the stated plea of abiding by the stand that the surrender was for buying peace. The said claim was not considered by the tax authorities.

The Tribunal considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the facts on record that the assessee was not a habitual defaulter, quashed the penalty.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Taxes on sales comprising in turnover to be excluded for estimating net profit
• Capital contribution deposited in assessee’s bank not partnership firm – Addition 69A upheld
• Bail granted to a CA accused in a GST evasion of more than 40 crores
• Every provision invoked casts a different onus, quoting wrong section prejudice the assessee
• Liability under MV Act can’t be decided on the grounds of sympathy alone – Supreme Court