2012 (10) TMI 63 - HC - Income Tax

Court Upholds ITAT Decision Annuling Penalties on Assessee

The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision to annul the penalty imposed under Section 273(2)(c) on the assessee. The Court found that the penalty, based on ... Penalty u/s 273(2)(c) - ITAT deleted the levy - Held that:- After finding that there is order of assessment of the income including the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs in the income of the assessee, the assessee deposited the advance tax. There was no illegality in the order passed by the ITAT and in view of the order passed by this Court in Tax Case No. 10 of 1999(R) wherein penalty on account of undisclosed income has been set aside after taking note of the assessee that one of the partners of the assessee declared undisclosed income because of the pressure of the searching officer and in fact there was no undisclosed income, thus the Tribunal had not committed any error - in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Penalty levied under Section 273(2)(c) based on a fresh document and incorrect sub-section.2. Requirement of higher estimate of advance tax by the assessing officer.3. Disputed undisclosed income and penalty under Section 271(2)(c).4. Validity of the ITAT's decision in deleting the penalty.Analysis:1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the penalty imposed under Section 273(2)(c) by the assessing officer based on a fresh document and an alleged incorrect sub-section. The ITAT was tasked with determining whether the penalty was rightfully deleted. The crux of the matter lay in the assessing officer's belief that the assessee should have submitted a higher estimate of advance tax due to a partner declaring undisclosed income during a search. However, the ITAT found in favor of the assessee, leading to the reference of the question of law to the High Court.2. The assessing officer contended that the assessee failed to pay advance tax on the undisclosed income declared by a partner of the firm during a search, resulting in the penalty under Section 273(2)(c). The High Court noted the submission of the assessee that the partner declared undisclosed income under duress, and there was no actual undisclosed income. Despite this, the assessing officer levied the penalty, which was subsequently set aside by the ITAT. The High Court, in dismissing Tax Case No. 10 of 1999, upheld the ITAT's decision to annul the penalty.3. The issue of penalty under Section 271(2)(c) was also addressed in this case. The ITAT had set aside this penalty, leading to its reference to the High Court. The High Court considered the circumstances, including the disputed undisclosed income and the subsequent deposit of advance tax by the assessee after the assessment order included the additional income. The Court concluded that there was no illegality in the ITAT's decision, especially in light of the dismissal of Tax Case No. 10 of 1999, and upheld the annulment of the penalty related to the undisclosed income.4. In conclusion, the High Court found that the ITAT's decision to delete the penalty under Section 273(2)(c) was justified given the factual and legal considerations. The Court emphasized the absence of any error on the part of the Tribunal, especially in light of the previous judgment related to a similar matter. The case was disposed of in accordance with the findings and precedents established, providing clarity on the validity of the penalty imposition and subsequent annulment.