Penalties under Income Tax Act overturned on appeal due to lack of concealment.

Vikram Plastics Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Godhra

Vikram Plastics Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Godhra - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Justification of levy of concealment penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of Levy of Concealment Penalty Under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

Case of M/s. Vikram Plastics:

The appellant challenged the confirmation of a penalty of Rs. 4,79,478 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty arose from an assessment order dated 21/03/1996 and a penalty order dated 28/06/2007. The firm, engaged in manufacturing Thermoware Articles, faced penalties due to two additions: unaccounted sale of raw material of Rs. 7,53,362 and diversion of income by sale to M/s. Milton Exports of Rs. 7,02,950. The CIT (Appeals) revised these amounts to Rs. 5,84,500 and Rs. 4,18,965, respectively. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO), who reassessed the income at the same figures and initiated penalty proceedings, concluding that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation.

The appellant argued that the additions were based on estimates and should not justify a concealment penalty. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the penalty, stating that the revised additions were not mere estimates but concealed income. The Tribunal, upon review, noted that the quantum appeal relied on the Tribunal's decision for the assessment year 1992-93. The Tribunal found that the burning loss and consumption of raw material were to be re-adjudicated by the AO, and the diversion of income to M/s. Milton Exports was to be reworked as per the Tribunal's findings for the previous year.

The Tribunal observed that the penalty was not justified as the additions were based on estimations and differences of opinion regarding the burning loss. The Tribunal also noted that no incriminating material was found during the search, and the stock records were maintained. The Tribunal concluded that the facts and figures were disclosed by the assessee, and the addition was due to a difference in opinion, not concealment. Therefore, the Tribunal directed to delete the penalty.

Case of M/s. Panorama Plastics:

The appellant challenged the confirmation of a penalty of Rs. 13 lacs. The penalty arose from two additions: excess consumption of raw material and diversion of profit to M/s. Milton Exports. The CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal upheld these additions based on the findings for the assessment year 1992-93. The Tribunal, following the same reasoning as in the case of M/s. Vikram Plastics, directed to delete the penalty.

Separate Judgment by Accountant Member:

The Accountant Member disagreed with the Judicial Member's findings, emphasizing that the penalty was justified due to the assessee's failure to produce relevant records and explanations during the assessment and penalty proceedings. The Accountant Member highlighted that the assessee's conduct indicated an intention to evade tax, and the penalty was warranted under Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Third Member Decision:

The Third Member, Vice President (AZ), concurred with the Judicial Member, finding that the penalty was not justified as the additions were based on estimates and differences of opinion. The Third Member concluded that the assessee's conduct was bona fide, and the facts did not support the imposition of a concealment penalty.

Final Order:

In accordance with the majority view, the appeals of the assessees were allowed, and the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were deleted.