2013 (7) TMI 67 - HC - Income Tax

Court affirms cancellation of penalty, rules in favor on assessability issues, dismisses appeal.

The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for inaccurate income particulars provided by the assessee, finding ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Tribunal upheld order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) - Held that:- Mere fact that the assessee had given up the plea of mutuality, one cannot immediately draw an inference that the assessee was lacking in bona fides in the matter of its claim - Following the decision of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] and Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills [2009 (5) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided against the revenue. Issues:1. Calculation of levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2000-2001.2. Assessability of commission received by the foreman.3. Assessability of foreman's dividend and the principle of mutuality.Issue 1: Calculation of levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c):The Revenue contested the calculation of penalty in this Tax Case Appeal. The substantial question of law was whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) canceling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). The Revenue argued that the penalty was justified due to inaccurate particulars of income provided by the assessee regarding foreman's commission and dividend received by the company. However, the Tribunal and the first Appellate Authority found that the assessee had disclosed all relevant materials in the returns, and the difference in viewpoints between the assessee and the Officer did not warrant a penalty for concealment. The Tribunal, following its previous order, canceled the penalty, upholding the Commissioner's decision. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision.Issue 2: Assessability of commission received by the foreman:The Court referred to a previous case where it was held that the commission received by the foreman should be assessed based on the completed contract method due to the uncertainty of dividend payments in chit transactions. The Court emphasized that the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting and the completed contract method to determine real income. The Court rejected the Revenue's argument that penalty should be levied due to the assessee giving up the principle of mutuality in this context. The Court upheld the decision in favor of the assessee regarding the commission received by the foreman.Issue 3: Assessability of foreman's dividend and the principle of mutuality:The Court analyzed the issue of foreman's dividend in the context of the principle of mutuality. It was noted that the company could act as a subscriber in chit transactions, affecting the assessment of dividend income. The Court rejected the Revenue's argument for penalty based on the assessee giving up the principle of mutuality. Referring to a Delhi High Court case, the Court distinguished between claims made with bona fide intention and those lacking bona fides under the Income Tax Act. The Court rejected the Revenue's plea, confirming the Tribunal's orders regarding the foreman's dividend and the principle of mutuality. The Tax Case Appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.This comprehensive summary provides a detailed analysis of the judgment, covering all the issues involved and the Court's reasoning behind its decisions.