2020 (5) TMI 47 - AT - Income Tax

Appeals Allowed: Incorrect Application of Tax Provisions and Penalties Deleted

Rekha Anil Duggad, Anil Gaherilal Duggad Versus The Dy. CIT, Ward-6 (1), Ahmedabad

Rekha Anil Duggad, Anil Gaherilal Duggad Versus The Dy. CIT, Ward-6 (1), Ahmedabad - TMI Issues Involved:- Addition of bogus liability u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act- Sustaining of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on additions made by the assessing officerAnalysis:Issue 1: Addition of Bogus Liability u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act- The appeals were filed against the decision of confirming additions made by the assessing officer on account of bogus liability, estimation of gross profit, and penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.- The assessing officer treated outstanding balance of sundry creditors as bogus liability and added it u/s. 68 of the Act.- The appellant contended that section 68 is only applicable to amounts received during the year, and the outstanding balances were squared off in subsequent years through account payee cheques, which the assessing officer did not dispute.- The Tribunal observed that the assessing officer incorrectly applied section 68 to the outstanding balances, as no purchases were made from the parties in question during the year, and the outstanding amounts were paid off in subsequent years through account payee cheques.- The Tribunal allowed the appeal, noting that the assessing officer failed to disprove the genuineness of the payments made by the appellant.Issue 2: Sustaining of Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on Additions Made- In one case, the penalty was levied on the quantum addition made u/s. 68 of the Act, which was later deleted, rendering the penalty infructuous.- In another case, the penalty was levied on the enhanced addition made by the CIT(A) on purchases from certain parties. The Tribunal noted that most additions were deleted, and only a marginal amount was sustained on an estimated basis.- The Tribunal found that the assessing officer incorrectly added outstanding balances of sundry creditors u/s. 68 without confronting the appellant to produce the parties. Considering the circumstances and the sustained additions on an estimated basis, the penalty was deleted.- The Tribunal allowed the appeals against the penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(c) in these cases.Conclusion:- The Tribunal allowed the appeals related to the addition of bogus liabilities and penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(c) based on the incorrect application of provisions and lack of evidence to support the additions.