2020 (11) TMI 4 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty orders for estimated income deleted on appeal, emphasizing procedural fairness and consistency.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals against penalty orders for A.Y 2010-11 and A.Y 2011-12, stating that penalties cannot be imposed on estimated income ... Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - bogus purchases - Estimation of income - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchases and was accepted and the penalty cannot be levied on estimated income. We found strength in the submissions of the AR. A.O has made total disallowance of bogus purchases but accepted the sales in the books of accounts and the CIT(A) has estimated the income of the assessee on purchases. Where the addition is sustained on the estimated basis, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied on the estimated income. Accordingly, we, considering the facts and principles of natural justice set aside the order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty and direct the A.O to delete the penalty and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee. Issues Involved:Appeal against penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year (A.Y) 2010-11 and A.Y 2011-12.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Failure to Consider Notices Sent to Old AddressThe appellant argued that notices were sent to an old address despite the new address being known to the Assessing Officer (A.O). The appellant cited instances of orders and demand notices for the previous year being sent to the new address. This issue raised concerns regarding procedural fairness and communication discrepancies.Issue 2: Violation of Principle of Natural JusticeThe appellant contended that the impugned order was passed in contravention of the principle of natural justice. This raised questions about the fairness and due process followed in the penalty proceedings.Issue 3: Illegal Reopening of CaseThe appellant alleged that the A.O illegally reopened the case without verifying the alleged information, emphasizing the independence of penalty proceedings from assessment proceedings. This issue highlighted procedural irregularities in the reopening of the case.Issue 4: Application of Doctrine of Res JudicataThe appellant argued that the impugned order was illegal based on the doctrine of Res Judicata, citing a previous assessment year where similar facts did not lead to disallowance of alleged purchases. This issue raised concerns about consistency and precedent in decision-making.Issue 5: Disallowance of Entire Purchase AmountThe appellant challenged the addition of the entire purchase amount for A.Y 2010-11 without doubting the sales, questioning the basis for such disallowance. This issue focused on the rationale behind the addition and its impact on the overall income determination.Issue 6: Alleged Bogus BillsThe appellant raised concerns about the authenticity of bills and corresponding sales, suggesting a discrepancy that needed further examination. This issue highlighted the need for thorough verification of transactions.Issue 7: Wrong Additions to Returned IncomeThe appellant argued that wrong additions were made to the returned income, citing precedents from High Courts and Tribunals to support the contention that disallowance should be restricted to a certain percentage of gross profit. This issue questioned the basis for additions and sought consistency in treatment.Judgment Summary:The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee against the penalty orders for A.Y 2010-11 and A.Y 2011-12. The Tribunal held that where additions were sustained on an estimated basis, penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be levied on the estimated income. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of principles of natural justice and directed the A.O to delete the penalties, considering the facts and arguments presented. The decision highlighted the need for procedural fairness and consistency in penalty imposition based on estimated income.