Tribunal upholds deletion of penalties under Income Tax Act for lack of concrete evidence

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, as the additions were based on ad-hoc estimations without concrete evidence of concealment. The tribunal also dismissed the appeals due to the low tax effect, falling below the threshold set by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The revenue's arguments were deemed not maintainable, and the penalties were ultimately upheld.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Estimation of profit element on non-genuine purchases.
3. Applicability of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 regarding low tax effect.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act:
The appeals were filed by the revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] which deleted the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) had initiated penalty proceedings and levied penalties of Rs. 4,00,000/- and Rs. 2,50,000/- for the assessment years (A.Y.) 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively, on the grounds that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed income. However, the CIT(A) deleted the penalties as the disallowance was based on an estimation of Gross Profit on the alleged non-genuine purchases.

2. Estimation of Profit Element on Non-Genuine Purchases:
The assessee, engaged in the business of fabrication and dealing in engineering goods, had filed returns which were later reassessed. The AO treated certain purchases as non-genuine based on information from DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai, and estimated the profit element from these non-genuine purchases at 10%. The CIT(A) later scaled this down to 5%. The tribunal noted that it is a settled position of law that penalty cannot be levied when an ad-hoc estimation is made. The tribunal referenced similar cases where it was held that there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars when the profit element is determined by way of ad-hoc estimation.

3. Applicability of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 Regarding Low Tax Effect:
The tribunal observed that the tax effect in these appeals was Rs. 4,00,000/- and Rs. 2,50,000/- for the A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively, which is less than Rs. 50 Lakhs. As per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with tax effects below Rs. 50 Lakhs are not maintainable. The revenue argued that this case falls under exceptions provided under clause 10(e) of the circular, which applies when additions are made based on information received from "external sources." However, the tribunal noted that the information was received from DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai, which is an internal agency of the revenue department and not an external source. Moreover, the modified instructions apply to assessment proceedings and not to penalty proceedings.

Conclusion:
The tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) deleting the penalties as the additions were based on ad-hoc estimations and not on concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Additionally, the appeals were dismissed due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The tribunal concluded that the revenue's grounds for appeal were not maintainable, and the appeals were dismissed.

---