2015 (10) TMI 2498 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds penalty deletion for IT Act violation, dismisses Revenue appeal

Income-tax Officer, Ward 11 (3), New Delhi Versus M/s. Fortune Technocomps (P) Ltd.

The tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the assessment year 2007-08. The penalty was deleted as ... Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - addition made on account of bogus purchases - Held that:- It is not in dispute that the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by AO on account of alleged bogus purchase. Besides, the addition made on the basis of estimation of gross profit rate does not warrant to hold that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income as held in plethora of decisions, relied upon by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. The ld. DR could not adduce any contrary decision on the issue. In view of this discussion, we do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order deleting penalty. - Decided against revenue Issues:- Challenge against deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 for assessment year 2007-08.- Disallowance of loss claimed by assessee on sales of unbranded items.- Imposition and deletion of penalty by Assessing Officer.Analysis:Issue 1: Challenge against deletion of penaltyThe appeal was directed by the Revenue against the deletion of penalty amounting to &8377; 22,99,380 imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty after considering the submissions of the assessee and the remand report. The ld. CIT(A) held that the purchases made by the assessee were genuine as the identity of the suppliers was established, and the suppliers were making substantial supplies to various customers. The ld. CIT(A) concluded that the assessee did not furnish inaccurate particulars of income, leading to the deletion of the penalty.Issue 2: Disallowance of loss on salesThe ld. CIT(A) disallowed the loss of &8377; 55,53,994 claimed by the assessee on sales of unbranded items from the purchases made from certain parties. An additional income of &8377; 12,77,202 was added by applying an estimated gross profit rate. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed this order, resulting in an overall addition of &8377; 68,31,195. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty alleging inaccurate particulars of income, which was later deleted by the ld. CIT(A) based on the findings of the quantum appeal. The deletion of the penalty was upheld as the estimation of gross profit rate did not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars by the assessee.Issue 3: Imposition and deletion of penaltyDuring the hearing, the ld. DR argued that the penalty should not have been deleted as the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars leading to the addition and penalty. However, the ld. AR contended that once the original basis for penalty proceedings was altered by the ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to impose a penalty based on the findings of the first appellate authority. The tribunal found no incongruity in the ld. CIT(A)'s order and upheld the deletion of the penalty. The tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to impose a penalty based on the addition made by the ld. CIT(A) on estimation of gross profit rate, as it did not indicate inaccurate particulars of income.In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, upholding the deletion of the penalty by the ld. CIT(A) as the assessee did not furnish inaccurate particulars of income.