Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 187 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- Penalty will not merely be imposed because it was lawful to do so - Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances - In respect to AY 1991-92, the addition made by AO on account of cash credit and gift remained as against the assessment made by AO - Even in the penalty order, the AO had not brought out any reason how these amounts were concealed income whereas the identity of the creditors, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction is proved except the negligible amount and that also due to lack of evidence - In respect to other additions, the AO had only made estimates. Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa [1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME Court] - even if a minimum penalty was prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty when there was a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bonafide belief that the offender was not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute - following the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we direct the AO to delete the penalty in AY 1991-92 - In respect to AY 1992-93, the assessee offered explanation before the lower authorities i.e. the AO as well as the CIT(A) during assessment proceedings and also during penalty proceedings - The relevant explanation was that there was no difference as such or the difference was very negligible. The jewelleries explained by the assessee and that was not found to be false by the AO - The explanation offered by assessee was not negated - as per rule of evidence there was distinction between set of facts ‘not proved' and facts disproved and facts proved - Benefit of the principle that mere non-satisfactory nature of explanation furnished cannot amount to proof of falsity of explanation furnished can apply in case the fact-finding authority reached to a stage where it can only conclude that the fact alleged was ‘not proved' which would result that except rejection of the explanation furnished by the assessee, there was no material to sustain the plea of concealment - once the explanation was not held to be false, the penalty cannot be sustained - Decided in favour of Assessee.
|