1982 (3) TMI 115 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds reduced penalty for Panipat Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.

Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. Versus Panipat Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to reduce the penalty amount imposed on Panipat Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. The Tribunal ... Assessment Year, Civil Court, Land Acquisition, Right To Receive Compensation, Valuation Date Issues:1. Reduction of penalty amount by Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of Panipat Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.2. Dispute over penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) for various additions made by the ITO during assessment proceedings.3. Legal grounds raised by the counsel for the assessee regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings and the nature of the penalty imposed.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: The only ground raised by the revenue in the appeal was regarding the reduction of the penalty amount by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of Panipat Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. The revenue contested the action of the Commissioner (Appeals) in reducing the penalty from Rs. 11,71,550 to Rs. 17,666.Issue 2: During the assessment proceedings, the ITO made four additions to the income of the assessee, including income from the sale of sugar and residential quarters, and amounts transferred to specific accounts. The IAC levied a penalty of Rs. 11,71,550 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on these additions. The Tribunal later deleted one of the additions, while the assessee accepted the other two additions after initial disputes.Issue 3: The counsel for the assessee raised legal grounds regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings, arguing that the penalty was imposed for concealment of income rather than furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the penalty of Rs. 17,666 based on the addition related to income from residential units. The counsel relied on legal provisions and a High Court decision to support the argument that the penalty proceedings were initiated incorrectly.The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides. The revenue contended that the assessee did not appeal against the penalty amount confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), limiting the scope of further legal challenges. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to reduce the penalty based on the deletion of one of the additions and the bona fide belief of the assessee in making the other additions in compliance with government notifications.Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, confirming the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to reduce the penalty amount. The Tribunal found that the reduction was justified based on the deletion of one addition and the genuine belief of the assessee in making the other additions in accordance with government notifications.