Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2016 (11) TMI 887 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal deletes penalty under Income Tax Act due to lack of evidence The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the penalty imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision emphasized the ...
                          Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                              Tribunal deletes penalty under Income Tax Act due to lack of evidence

                              The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the penalty imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision emphasized the insufficiency of the AO's evidence, which was based on information from another entity's assessment without independent verification. The Tribunal found the assessee's evidence supporting the legitimacy of purchases and their use in executing a contract to be substantial. It highlighted the requirement for clear evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars for penalty imposition, which was not met in this case. The penalty was deleted, underscoring the importance of verifying claims before penalizing taxpayers.




                              Issues Involved:
                              1. Confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
                              2. Validity of evidence used by the Assessing Officer (AO).
                              3. Adequacy of the assessee’s explanation and evidence.

                              Detailed Analysis:

                              1. Confirmation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):
                              The primary issue in the appeal is the confirmation of a penalty amounting to Rs. 5,11,500/- imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was based on the disallowance of Rs. 14,32,750/- for purchases deemed bogus from M/s. Girnar Sales Corporation and M/s. Shiv Metal Corporation. The Tribunal had previously restricted the addition to 30% of the purchases, recognizing that the net profit from such bogus purchases could not exceed 30%. Despite this, the penalty was computed on the full amount of Rs. 14,32,750/-.

                              2. Validity of Evidence Used by the AO:
                              The AO's evidence was derived from the assessment proceedings of M/s. Prakash Marbles and Engineering Company, where proprietors of Girnar Sales Corporation and Shiv Metal Corporation admitted to issuing accommodation bills. However, this evidence was not independently verified or directly confronted with the assessee. The assessee argued that no direct evidence was found in their case and that the AO relied on material from another entity's assessment without providing it to the assessee for rebuttal.

                              3. Adequacy of the Assessee’s Explanation and Evidence:
                              The assessee provided detailed submissions and evidence to support the genuineness of the purchases, including:
                              - Bills from Girnar Sales Corporation and Shiv Metal Corporation.
                              - Evidence of payment by cheque.
                              - Quantitative tally showing the material used for executing a contract with GMDC Ltd.
                              - Affidavit from the partner of the assessee firm confirming the use of purchased materials for the GMDC contract.
                              The assessee contended that the AO ignored this evidence and relied solely on the affidavits from the third parties without cross-verification. The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to prove the falsity of the bills and other evidence submitted by the assessee, making the penalty imposition unjustified.

                              Judgment:
                              The Tribunal found that the AO's evidence was insufficient as it was based on information from another entity's assessment without independent verification. The assessee provided substantial evidence to support the legitimacy of the purchases and their use in executing a contract. The Tribunal highlighted that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) requires clear evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, which was not established in this case. The Tribunal referred to similar cases where penalties were deleted under analogous circumstances.

                              Conclusion:
                              The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the penalty imposed by the AO. The decision emphasized the importance of providing the assessee with an opportunity to rebut evidence and the necessity for the AO to independently verify claims before imposing penalties. The judgment reinforced that penalties should not be based on estimated additions without concrete proof of concealment or inaccuracy in particulars furnished by the assessee.

                              Order:
                              The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty of Rs. 5,11,500/- was deleted. The order was pronounced on 11th November, 2016, at Ahmedabad.
                              Full Summary is available for active users!
                              Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                              Topics

                              ActsIncome Tax
                              No Records Found