Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Siraigo Pharma Pvt Ltd Versus The DCIT, Jaipur

2015 (10) TMI 735 - ITAT JAIPUR

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - disallowance of loss - books of account of the company deliberately not produced before the AO as concluded by CIT(A) - Held that:- This is not a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as in assessment order, no incriminating document is alleged to be discovered as a result of search or has been relied on by AO in assessment order to disallow the loss. There is no finding of the AO alleging any document showing unaccounted sales or purchases or inflati .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ent u/s 153A is limited to incriminating documents/evidence found as a result of search. In search and seizure operations admittedly no incriminating material belonging to this assessee was found. It is by now settled law that the scope of the assessment u/s 153A is limited to incriminating documents/evidence found as a result of search.

There is no justifiable basis to disbelieve the assessee's contention that the books of accounts could not be produced as they were in the custody o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

icate that non production of books was non deliberate. Except non production of books, no reason or basis whatsoever has been assigned by authorities below in disallowing the entire loss. Thus disallowance is based on pure guesswork and not on any cogent reason.

Hon'ble Apex Court in Hindustan Steels Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME Court). has held that Penalty shall not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed the a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act by the order of ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur dated 1-1-2015, raising following grounds:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) erred in holding that books of account of the company deliberately not produced before the AO. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the imposition of penalty of ₹ 6,20,651/- under section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961 which was levied by ld AO .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed Co. engaged in manufacturing and trading of medicines with registered office at Navi Mumbai. Shri Radhey Shyam Mittal and Shri Atul Burman (working director) are Directors of the company and not related. Shri Atul looked after the business and accounts at Mumbai office. Assessee filed its regular return u/s 139(1) on the basis of its audited books of accounts declaring loss of ₹ 16,96,113/-. Search & Seizure operations were carried on 27-08-2008 as a consequence to searches over Mit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

books were maintained at Mumbai office under the control of working Director Shri Atul Burman and due to impeding disputes, the responding director i.e. Shri Radhey Shyam Mittal was not able to produce them. Consequently ld. AO framed best judgment order u/s 144 of Income Tax Act by summarily disallowing the entire loss of ₹ 16,96,113/- claimed in return. Assessee claims to have not filed the appeal as there were continuous losses and the future was bleak due to disputes. Carry forwarding .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

confirmed the AO's order imposing penalty. 2.3 Aggrieved, the assessee is now before us and the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contends that:- (i) Both the authorities below have erroneously held that the assessee deliberately did not produce the books of accounts. These observations are contrary to facts and evidence available on record. They failed to appreciate that despite intensive search operations no documents or books of account pertaining to the assessee in question were found at Jaip .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

012, on same facts while admitting the additional evidence has endorsed the dispute between directors. For non production of books earlier before AO, it has been held that assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in this behalf by following observations:- "6. ……….. Having considered the above facts it is noticed that there was definitely some dispute between the directors on the issue of books of account. However, circumstantial corroborated facts indicate that the ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s contention are corroborated and strengthened in view of the following facts:- a) In AY 2005-2006, no application for additional evidence was made as no quantum appeal was filed for this year. b) In AY 2005-2006, in Assessment Order there is no findings that the assessee has shown low GP or understated revenue or inflated expenses. The ld AO has only disallowed the loss for the reason the books of account were not produced before him. Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that penalty .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

High Court has held that an order passed by an authority without jurisdiction is a nullity and its invalidity can be challenged whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon. In the case of Jaidayal Pyarelal V. CIT 1973 Tax LR 880 the Allahabad High Court held with reference to a new plea taken in the penalty proceedings which was not taken in the regular assessment proceedings as under:- "It is thus clear that the regular assessment order is not a final word upon the pl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lity due to non service of notice u/s 143(2) within limitation period. Admittedly neither any incriminating material was found as a result of search nor it is relied on by ld. AO while disallowing the loss; consequently the 153A assessment and summary disallowance of loss is void ab initio. Hence the impugned 153A assessment and addition/ disallowance of loss is not sustainable in law. On this plea also the impugned penalty is liable to be deleted. 2.4 Ld. Counsel contends that assessee has show .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d as evidence in view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Addl. CIT Vs Jai Engineering Works Ltd. (1978) 113 ITR 389, 391-2 (Del), wherein, Hon'ble High Court has held that audit report is a reliable evidence. It is further contended that: a. It is by now settled law that the scope of the assessment u/s 153A is limited to incriminating documents/evidence found as a result of search. In search and seizure operations admittedly no incriminating material belong .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rovisions impugned assessment for AY 2005-06 of the assessee stands abated. In these circumstances notice u/s 153A cannot be issued for an abetted assessment, more particularly where no incriminating documents as a result of search are discovered by search & seizure operations on 27-08-2008. c. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India) Vs Astt Commissioner of Income Tax (2013) 88 DTR (Raj) 1 : (2013) 259 CTR (Raj) 281 : (2013 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es in case of disallowance of loss there is no loss to the revenue. Reliance is placed on Hindustan Steels Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26 (SC). Hon'ble Apex Court has held that - Penalty shall not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed the authority shall exercise the discretion judicially and on consideration of all the relevant circumstances; the penalty should not be imposed when there is technical or venial breach of the provisions. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lty. (iii) No reasons have been assigned for grossly and summarily wiping out the entire loss. Thus it is a case of arbitrary disallowance and not judicious and reasonable estimation of income. In such cases of guesswork and conjecture based estimation penalty u/s 271(1) ( c ) can not be levied. (iv) Reliance is placed on following decisions of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court: - a) Shiv Lal Tak Vs CIT [2001] 251 ITR 373 (Raj) b) CIT Vs Harshvardhan Chemicals & Minerals Ltd [2003] 133 Taxman .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

inference has been drawn that assessee deliberately failed to produce the books. Adverting to the assessee's plea about no loss to revenue, it is contended that after amendment in sec. 271(1) (c), penalty can be imposed even in cases of reduction of losses. 2.8 We have heard the rival contentions and peruse the material available on record. We are of the view that this is not a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on following facts, reasoning and observations: (i) In assessment .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

thereof there is merit in assessee's plea that notice u/s 153A cannot be issued for an abetted assessment, based on search & seizure operations on 27-08-2008 where no incriminating documents as a result of search are discovered. (iii) Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India) Vs ACIT (2013) 259 CTR (Raj) 281 and it is by now settled law that the scope of the assessment u/s 153A is limited to incriminating documents/eviden .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version