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>Tribunal cancels penalty under Income Tax Act, citing lack of evidence for mala-fide intention</h1> <h3>DCIT, Circle-3, Thane (W) Versus Shri Vilas Anant Shimpi</h3> DCIT, Circle-3, Thane (W) Versus Shri Vilas Anant Shimpi - TMI Issues:- Appeal against deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.Analysis:Issue 1: Deletion of PenaltyThe appeal was against the deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). The Assessing Officer had levied the penalty based on the assessee's alleged failure to prove the genuineness of purchases from Hawala parties. The grounds raised by the revenue included the failure of the assessee to produce the alleged bogus parties for verification and the clear intention to reduce taxable income. The penalty was also based on information received from the Sales Tax Department of the Government of Maharashtra regarding bogus purchase bills. The Assessing Officer had ex-parte levied the penalty, citing the lack of contestation by the assessee and an admission of concealment of income. However, the CIT(A) deleted the penalty, emphasizing that the penalties were merely on disallowance of purchases and not on concealment or mala-fide intention to reduce taxable income. The CIT(A) found that the additions made on account of disallowance of purchases as bogus did not justify the penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the Assessing Officer had not doubted the sales made by the assessee or the payments made by account payee cheques. The Tribunal concluded that mere presumption of bogus purchases was insufficient to levy the penalty, especially when sales were not in question. Therefore, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A) and dismissed the revenue's appeal.Final Decision:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, as the mere presumption of bogus purchases without questioning the genuine sales made by the assessee was insufficient to justify the penalty. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed, and the order pronounced on 22nd January 2021.
TaxTMI 