Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) merely because quantum was decided against assessee by ITAT. The assessment and penalty proceedings are independent

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not imposable merely because quantum was decided against assessee by ITAT. The assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are independent proceedings. ITAT Amritsar, in a recent judgment, upheld the deletion of the peanlty when additions were made on estimation basis.

Case Law Details :
I.T.A No.148 (Asr)/2014 Assessment Year: 2004-05
ACIT vs M/s Star Constructions

Date of Order/Judgment: 06/05/2016

Brief Facts of the Case:
Present appeal related to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed by the AO on the additions made in the assessment order dated 30.06.2008 by estimating the income of the appellant by applying net profit rate of 5%. Earlier, penalty order imposing penalty of 100% of tax sought to be evaded in respect of this income was already made on 30.12.2008 which was deleted by CIT(Appeals), Jammu. The order deleting the penalty was further upheld by the ITAT Amritsar vide order no. ITA 33(ASR)/2010 though the quantum was decided against the assessee.

However the AO again imposed the peanlty again.

Contentions of the Assessee:
It was submitted that various Courts and Tribunal had held that where the income of the assessee is assessed on the basis of estimation, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposable. Reliance was passed upon the following judgments.
(i) CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. 303 ITR 53 (P&H)
(ii) CIT vs. P Rojes 90 DTR 399 (Madras HC)
(ii) CIT vs. Shri Sindhuja Foods (P) Ltd. (Rajsthan High Court)

 

download full judgment

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Non- payment of cost imposed can’t trigger automatic confirmation of an invalid exparte assessment.

ITAT power to pass such orders "as it thinks fit" implies a judicial discretion to be exercised within the parameters…

19 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Non-deduction of TDS does not make transaction as unexplained in the hands of deductee – ITAT

Mere non-deduction of TDS by the deductor on a transaction does not change the character of the transaction to make…

3 days ago
  • ICAI

Last date to submit MEF 2026-27 extended to 09.09.2026

ICAI has extended the last date to online submit Multipurpose Empanelment Form (MEF)- 2026-27 from 29th August 2026 to 9th…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

Validity of demand u/s 156 for default u/s 115-O, if assessment order u/s 143(3) has Nil demand

Can a demand notice be issued u/s 156 for non-payment of Dividend tax u/s 115-O, when as per assessment order…

5 days ago
  • Income Tax

Issue already examined and adjudicated by CIT(Appeals), can’t be reopened on same set of facts

The issue already examined and adjudicated by the quasi-judicial authority, i.e., CIT(Appeals), cannot be reopened on the same set of…

6 days ago
  • Income Tax

TDS can’t be denied for non deposit of tax deducted by the deductor – High Court

One TDS is deducted, credit has to follow, failure of deductor to deposit the amount to the credit of the…

7 days ago