9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1706 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Estimation of income - bogus purchases -Additions in quantum assessment was restricted to 12.5% - HELD THAT - ITAT Mumbai in case of Mun Gems 2024 (1) TMI 209 - ITAT MUMBAI has held that where AO treated entire purchase as bogus based on findings of investigation wing and levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act since payment for purchases had been made through account payee cheques and there were corresponding sales ad hoc GP rate applied on alleged bogus purchases to factor in suppression of alleged gross profit could not be basis of levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealing particulars of income. Since the facts are similar following the above decisions the order of CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is upheld. Accordingly the grounds of the revenue are dismissed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in these appeals are: (a) Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for concealment of income by the assessee who allegedly took bogus accommodation entries to inflate expenses and suppress true profits? (b) Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied when the addition to income is made on an estimated or ad hoc basis rather than on precise quantification of undisclosed income? (c) Whether the facts and evidence from the Sales Tax Department and DGIT (Investigation Wing) proving that the parties involved were paper companies controlled by hawala traders suffice to establish deliberate concealment of income by the assessee attracting penalty? (d) Whether the decisions of various judicial authorities, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Courts, and ITAT, support imposition or deletion of penalty in cases involving estimated additions based on accommodation entries? (e) Whether the penalty proceedings were validly initiated and sustained in light of the nature of additions and the explanations provided by the assessee? (f) Whether the revenue's appeal should be entertained despite the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit, given the case involves organized tax evasion as per CBDT circulars? 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (a): Validity of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for alleged bogus accommodation entries Legal framework and precedents: Section 271(1)(c) provides for levy of penalty where there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Explanation 1 appended to this section clarifies that furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment attracts penalty. The Supreme Court in Union of India vs Dharmendra Textiles Processors & Ors. has held that the section embodies strict liability for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, designed as a revenue protection measure. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The AO levied penalty on the basis that the assessee had taken bogus purchases from paper companies controlled by hawala traders, thereby inflating expenses and suppressing income. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, relying on the fact that additions were made on an estimated basis and that the penalty could not be levied on such ad hoc disallowances. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had relied on the ITAT decision in Elcon Pipe and Fittings Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, where penalty was deleted under similar facts. Key evidence and findings: The DGIT (Investigation Wing) and Sales Tax Department's findings established that the parties were paper companies providing accommodation entries. The assessee failed to produce these parties or furnish satisfactory explanations, which prima facie indicated concealment. However, the additions and penalty were based on an estimated 12.5% of the purchases rather than the entire amount. Application of law to facts: Despite the prima facie evidence of bogus purchases, the penalty was levied on the estimated addition. The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on estimated or ad hoc additions, as established by several judicial precedents. The Tribunal thus upheld the deletion of penalty by CIT(A). Treatment of competing arguments: The revenue argued that the entire purchase amount was bogus and that the penalty was justified on the addition upheld by the Tribunal. The assessee contended that penalty cannot be levied on estimated additions. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention based on the judicial precedents. Conclusion: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained where additions are made on an estimated basis even if the underlying facts suggest concealment. Issue (b): Penalty levy on estimated or ad hoc additions Legal framework and precedents: The Tribunal referred to several decisions, including ITAT Mumbai in Elcon Pipe and Fittings, Mun Gems vs. ACIT, ITAT Surat in Yogendra Raj U Sanghvi and DCIT vs. Opulent Jewels Pvt. Ltd., which consistently held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on ad hoc or estimated additions. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that additions made on estimation basis are inherently uncertain and do not constitute furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment with the required mens rea for penalty. Thus, penalty cannot be imposed merely because the income was estimated. Key evidence and findings: The original disallowance by AO was 100% of purchases, which was restricted to 12.5% by CIT(A) and ITAT. The penalty was levied on the tax effect of this estimated addition. The Tribunal found this approach inconsistent with settled law. Application of law to facts: Since the addition was on an estimated basis, the penalty could not be sustained. The Tribunal followed the precedents to uphold the deletion of penalty. Treatment of competing arguments: Revenue urged that the penalty should be upheld on the addition confirmed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that the quantum of addition being estimated precludes penalty. Conclusion: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable on additions made on an estimated or ad hoc basis. Issue (c): Sufficiency of evidence from Sales Tax and DGIT (Investigation Wing) to establish concealment Legal framework and precedents: The law requires that concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars be established with cogent evidence. Investigative findings from other departments can be relevant but must be corroborated. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal acknowledged the findings of the Sales Tax Department and DGIT (Investigation Wing) that the parties were paper companies providing accommodation entries. However, since the penalty was levied on estimated addition, the evidentiary value was insufficient to uphold penalty. Key evidence and findings: The assessee did not produce the parties for verification nor furnish satisfactory explanations. The AO relied on investigation reports to treat purchases as bogus. Application of law to facts: Despite strong prima facie evidence, penalty could not be sustained without precise quantification of concealed income. The Tribunal distinguished between evidence sufficiency for addition and for penalty levy. Treatment of competing arguments: Revenue relied heavily on investigative findings to support penalty. The assessee challenged the penalty on legal grounds of estimation. The Tribunal balanced these and ruled in favour of the assessee on penalty issue. Conclusion: Investigative evidence alone, without precise quantification, does not justify penalty under section 271(1)(c) when additions are estimated. Issue (d): Judicial precedents on penalty in cases involving estimated additions and accommodation entries Legal framework and precedents: The Tribunal extensively relied on decisions of the Supreme Court, High Courts, and ITAT benches, including:
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that while these decisions affirm the strict liability nature of penalty under section 271(1)(c), they also consistently hold that penalty cannot be imposed where additions are made on an estimated basis. The Tribunal distinguished between concealment established by evidence and mere estimation of income. Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s reliance on these precedents was justified and consistent with the facts. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied these precedents to uphold deletion of penalty on estimated additions despite underlying suspicion of bogus purchases. Treatment of competing arguments: The revenue sought to rely on judgments allowing penalty in cases of deliberate concealment, but the Tribunal held that those cases involved precise quantification, unlike the present case. Conclusion: Judicial precedents support deletion of penalty where additions are estimated, even if concealment is prima facie established. Issue (e): Validity of penalty proceedings and procedural aspects Legal framework and precedents: Penalty proceedings require clear identification of the nature of default and adherence to procedural safeguards. The assessee challenged jurisdiction and nature of default in penalty proceedings. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The CIT(A) recorded the assessee's submissions on jurisdiction and nature of default but found the penalty unsustainable on merits. The Tribunal did not find procedural infirmities warranting interference. Key evidence and findings: The penalty proceedings were initiated after assessment and appellate orders. Show cause notices were issued and replied to. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal found no procedural irregularity affecting the penalty order's validity but upheld deletion on substantive grounds. Treatment of competing arguments: Revenue did not press procedural grounds; focus was on merits. The assessee raised jurisdictional issues which were duly considered. Conclusion: Penalty proceedings were validly initiated but penalty was rightly deleted on merits. Issue (f): Appeal despite tax effect below prescribed monetary limit due to organized tax evasion Legal framework and precedents: CBDT Circular F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt) and its amendments prescribe monetary limits for filing appeals. However, Circular No. 05/2024 provides exceptions for cases involving organized tax evasion where appeals may be filed irrespective of tax effect. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit but the case involved organized tax evasion as per investigation findings. Thus, the revenue was justified in filing the appeal. Key evidence and findings: The involvement of hawala traders and paper companies indicated organized evasion. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal accepted the revenue's entitlement to appeal despite low tax effect. Treatment of competing arguments: No dispute on this point. Conclusion: Revenue's appeal was maintainable under the exception for organized tax evasion cases. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied on the estimated addition by the AO, which has been deleted by the CIT(A). The ld. AR has argued that different ITATs, Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts have held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be levied where addition was on estimated basis." "Since the facts are similar, following the above decisions, the order of CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is upheld." "Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained where additions are made on an estimated basis even if the underlying facts suggest concealment." "Investigative evidence alone, without precise quantification, does not justify penalty under section 271(1)(c) when additions are estimated." "The case falls under one of the exceptions laid down in CBDT Circular No. 05/2024, wherein it is stated that in cases involving 'organized tax evasion' the decision to file appeal shall be taken on merit without regard to the tax effect and the monetary limit." Final determinations:
|
