2025 (2) TMI 1257 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty under s.271(1)(c) deleted where s.143(3) estimated additions were inherently subjective and not liable for penalty

ITAT DELHI - AT allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty under s.271(1)(c). The AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) with large estimated additions after ... Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) - assessee was indulged in providing accommodation entries and the net profit was estimated @ 3% of the total turnover after rejecting the book profit from two parties and the same was added to the income u/s 68 HELD THAT:- We observed that in this case, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 30.03.2016 at an assessed income of Rs.3,25,43,787/- against the returned income of Rs.12,73,721/. We observed that the CIT (A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the AO. We observed that the Assessing Officer made the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act which was sustained by the ld. CIT (A). As observed that ITAT in the quantum appeal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and sustained the addition on estimation basis. We observed that the assessee is aggrieved against confirmation of penalty on the basis of estimated addition made in quantum assessment. Bearing in mind the fact that the related quantum addition was purely on estimated basis with inherent subjectivity involved, we are of the opinion that no penalty is warranted. For taking such an action, we rely on the following decisions wherein Hon’ble High Courts have upheld the action of the Tribunal deleting penalty levied on estimated quantum addition as in Krishi Tyre Retreadign and Rubber Industries [2014 (2) TMI 21 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT], Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. 2008 (2) TMI 285 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] and Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. [1995 (11) TMI 37 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] Thus, the issue as to whether the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act be levied on estimated quantum addition is no longer res-integra, therefore, we are inclined to direct the deletion of the penalty levied and the appeal is allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act can be levied where the impugned income addition in the quantum assessment is made on an estimated basis. 2. Whether an estimation-based addition, involving inherent subjectivity, prima facie supports a finding of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars warranting penalty under section 271(1)(c). ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 1: Levy of penalty where quantum addition is estimation-based Legal framework: Section 271(1)(c) penalises concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The imposition of penalty requires a satisfaction that the taxpayer has concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars on the basis of the available material. Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal relied on decisions of High Courts that have addressed the permissibility of imposing penalty where the quantum addition is based on estimation (citations referred to in the judgment). Those authorities have, in the circumstances set out in those rulings, upheld deletion of penalty when the quantum addition was founded on estimation with material subjectivity. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the contested additions in the assessment were made on an estimation basis and that such estimation inherently involves subjectivity. Where the quantum is determined by estimation rather than incontrovertible documentary proof of undisclosed receipts or transactions, the necessary foundation for concluding deliberate concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars is weakened. The Tribunal treated the existence of substantial subjectivity in the estimated additions as undermining the culpability threshold required for sustaining penalty under section 271(1)(c). Ratio vs. Obiter: The holding that penalty cannot be sustained where the addition rests on an estimation involving inherent subjectivity is applied as the operative ratio of the decision. The reliance on High Court precedents is treated as binding guidance for this conclusion in the factual matrix before the Court. Conclusion: The penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was held not warranted and was deleted for the assessment year where the addition was estimation-based. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 2: Whether estimation-based addition suffices to infer concealment or inaccuracy for penalty Legal framework: Imposition of penalty requires a positive satisfaction of concealment or inaccurate particulars; objective material must support such satisfaction. Estimation is a method of determining income where direct proof is absent, but the character of the estimation and surrounding evidence inform whether it establishes culpability. Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal followed High Court authorities that have distinguished between additions based on cogent documentary evidence and those made by estimation, holding that the latter may not, without more, support a conclusion of deliberate concealment for the purpose of attracting penalty. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court considered that the assessment in question involved rejection of certain books/profits and the application of an estimated net profit rate to determine taxable income. Given that the coordinate Bench in quantum allowed parts of the appeal and sustained only an estimated addition, the Tribunal regarded the remaining addition as founded on estimation and therefore insufficient to sustain the punitive inference required under section 271(1)(c). The Court emphasized that subjectivity in estimation militates against treating the resulting figure as conclusive proof of concealment. Ratio vs. Obiter: The conclusion that estimation-based additions do not necessarily amount to concealment (absent further evidence of intention or falsity) is treated as ratio applicable to similar fact patterns; any general observations about estimation and penalty beyond the present facts are ancillary. Conclusion: Estimation-based additions, in the absence of incontrovertible evidence of deliberate concealment or inaccurate particulars, do not sustain penalty under section 271(1)(c); penalty was therefore deleted. APPLICATION TO BOTH ASSESSMENT YEARS / CROSS-REFERENCE Legal framework & reasoning applied mutatis mutandis: The facts for the other assessment year were held to be identical; therefore the Tribunal applied the same legal analysis and conclusion on penalty deletion to that year as well. Conclusion: Penalty deletion directed for both assessment years on the ground that the impugned additions were estimation-based and therefore did not justify levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c).