2013 (1) TMI 850 - AT - Income Tax

High Court shifts burden of proof to Department on genuineness of transactions. Tribunal cancels penalty on cash credit addition.

Late Mohd. Anwar Khan, Through Legal Heir Muzaffar Khan Prop. M/s. Vikram Engineers Versus ITO, 3 (1), Bhopal

The High Court accepted a substantial question of law regarding the genuineness of parties and transactions, shifting the burden of proof to the ... - Issues involved: Appeal against penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 1996-97.Summary:1. The appeal was filed against the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) for cash credit and sale of scrap. The Assessing Officer's penalty was based on additions made, which were later confirmed by the Tribunal. 2. The High Court accepted a substantial question of law regarding the genuineness of parties and transactions, shifting the burden of proof to the Department. The Tribunal observed that when a substantial question of law is accepted, the issue becomes debatable, and no penalty can be imposed.3. Citing precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that when a substantial question of law is accepted by the High Court, the addition is debatable, and penalty cannot be levied. The Tribunal directed the cancellation of the penalty for the cash credit addition but confirmed the penalty for the sale of scrap.4. The decision was in line with previous judgments by the High Court and Supreme Court, highlighting that a substantial question of law must be debatable. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, canceling the penalty for cash credit but confirming it for the sale of scrap.5. The Tribunal's order was pronounced on 31st January 2013, directing the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty for the cash credit addition while confirming the penalty for the sale of scrap.