TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>ITAT cancels penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) for AY 2008-09 for manufacturing company</h1> <h3>Volga Airtechnics Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 8 (4), Ahmedabad</h3> Volga Airtechnics Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 8 (4), Ahmedabad - TMI Issues involved: Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for assessment year 2008-09 based on disallowances u/s. 43B and 40A(7) in the tax audit report.Summary:The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad heard an appeal against a penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2008-09. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) had levied a penalty of Rs. 3,53,794/- on the assessee, a company engaged in manufacturing and trading activities, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The additions were made u/s. 43B and 40A(7) based on discrepancies in bonus and gratuity payments reported in the tax audit report.During assessment, the A.O. disallowed Rs. 3,25,566/- claimed as bonus to employees as it was paid after the due date of filing the return, invoking u/s. 43B. Additionally, a provision for gratuity of Rs. 8,53,748/- was disallowed u/s. 40A(7) as it was not an actual payment. The A.O. initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) based on these disallowances.The assessee, a Sick Company with financial difficulties, argued that the disallowances were not deliberate attempts to conceal income but due to the company's financial crisis. However, the A.O. and CIT (A) upheld the penalty citing failure to disclose disallowances in the e-return and tax audit report.On appeal, the Tribunal considered the assessee's status as a Sick Industrial Company with nil taxable income after adjustments. The disallowances were reported in the tax audit report, indicating no intention to conceal income. Citing the Price Waterhouse Coopers case, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, canceling the penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c).In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, canceling the penalty imposed by the A.O. The decision was based on the assessee's disclosure in the tax audit report and the absence of deliberate concealment of income.Judges: Shri D.K. Tyagi, JM and Shri Anil Chaturvedi A.M.
TaxTMI 