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>High Court: Penalty under Income Tax Act not justified</h1> <h3>Taparia Tools Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Nasik</h3> Taparia Tools Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Nasik - TMI Issues:1. Imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Competency of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) without fresh facts.Analysis:1. The Applicant-Assessee declared income as 'Nil' for Assessment Year 1989-90 but claimed an expenditure of Rs. 6.48 lakhs as deferred revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer disallowed this expenditure, adding it to the income chargeable to tax without initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the Applicant-Assessee's appeal on merits and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) regarding the claimed deduction. A penalty of Rs. 3.40 lakhs was imposed on the grounds of filing false claims for deduction with incorrect income particulars.3. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, stating that the Applicant-Assessee filed incorrect income particulars as the claim in the subject year had been disallowed previously. The Tribunal found the claim not bona fide, leading to the penalty imposition.4. However, it was noted that the Assessing Officer did not find justification to initiate penalty proceedings during the assessment but the CIT(A) initiated and imposed the penalty. The Tribunal upheld this decision based on the claim disallowance in earlier years.5. The High Court referred to the principle established in CIT v/s. Reliance Petroproducts, stating that mere disallowance of an expenditure claim does not automatically lead to concealment of income or inaccurate particulars, warranting a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.6. Ultimately, the High Court answered the substantial question of law in favor of the Applicant-Assessee, holding that the penalty imposition was not justified, and disposed of the reference accordingly without costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
