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>Penalties dismissed under Sec. 271(1)(c) for estimated income. Threshold criteria met. Specific exceptions needed.</h1> <h3>ITO- 13 (2) (4), Mumbai Versus M/s Stripco Springs Pvt. Ltd.</h3> ITO- 13 (2) (4), Mumbai Versus M/s Stripco Springs Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues:1. Validity of penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Maintainability of the revenue's appeal based on tax effect threshold.3. Interpretation of CBDT Circulars regarding exceptions for filing appeals.Analysis:Issue 1: Validity of Penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c)The appeal pertains to a penalty imposed under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an assessee who had booked bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer (A.O) disallowed a portion of the purchases and assessed the income accordingly. The CIT(A) restricted the addition to 12.5% of the disallowance amount. The Tribunal upheld this decision. The A.O then imposed a penalty, which the CIT(A) vacated, citing that the addition was made on an estimate basis. The Tribunal concurred, stating that penalty cannot be imposed where income was estimated, leading to the dismissal of the penalty.Issue 2: Maintainability of Revenue's AppealThe revenue's appeal was challenged on the grounds of maintainability due to the tax effect involved. The CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 set a threshold limit for filing appeals by the revenue. The revenue argued that the appeal fell under an exception in a previous circular, making it maintainable. However, the Tribunal ruled that the tax effect was below the threshold set in the latest circular, rendering the appeal not maintainable, and subsequently dismissed it.Issue 3: Interpretation of CBDT CircularsThe Tribunal analyzed the CBDT Circulars to determine the maintainability of the revenue's appeal. It highlighted an exception in the circular regarding cases based on external sources. The Tribunal emphasized the independence of quantum and penalty proceedings, stating that confirmation of an addition does not automatically justify a penalty. It concluded that unless a specific exception was provided, penalties could not be equated with quantum additions. Based on this interpretation, the Tribunal found the revenue's appeal not maintainable as per the latest circular, leading to its dismissal.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal based on the tax effect threshold outlined in the CBDT Circular, emphasizing the need for specific exceptions to justify penalties in tax proceedings.
TaxTMI 