2016 (8) TMI 1389 - HC - Income Tax

Court rules in favor of assessee in penalty dispute under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 1997-1998. Lack of evidence deems penalty unwarranted.

The Court ruled in favor of the assessee in a challenge to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order regarding penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for the ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition of bogus purchases - Held that:- Taking into consideration the order the Tribunal, the evidence which has surfaced on record as well as the decision of this Court in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2015 (1) TMI 828 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein the question of law was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and consequently, the penalty imposed was quashed and set aside, we are of the view that the issues raised in this Appeal are to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Issues:Challenge to order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for the Assessment Year 1997-1998.Analysis:1. The Appellant, an assessee, challenged the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order dated 31.08.2007 for the Assessment Year 1997-1998. The Court framed substantial questions of law regarding the confirmation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in relation to the addition of a specific amount concerning purchases made.2. The Appellant's Counsel argued that the case was ordered to be heard with another Tax Appeal, emphasizing a previous decision by the Court in a similar matter. The Counsel referred to a specific case and relevant paragraphs, highlighting the issue of penalty imposition based on estimation without concrete evidence, leading to the penalty being deemed unwarranted.3. The Counsel for the Appellant further cited a decision by the Apex Court regarding conditions for immunity after search proceedings, emphasizing the entitlement to immunity under specific provisions of the Income-tax Act. Additionally, reference was made to another case where the penalty imposed on the assessee was quashed and set aside, supporting the argument against the penalty in the present case.4. On the contrary, the Department's Counsel argued in favor of confirming the penalty due to the presence of bogus purchases. After hearing both parties and examining the evidence and previous judgments, the Court decided in favor of the assessee, citing the Tribunal's order, the evidence on record, and the precedent set by a previous case involving similar issues.5. In conclusion, the Court disposed of the matter by ruling in favor of the assessee, indicating that the issues raised in the Appeal were to be decided in favor of the assessee and against the Department.