2000 (5) TMI 180 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal cancels penalty under IT Act for genuine mistake in closing stock valuation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. Versus AKASH INDUSTRIES.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. Versus AKASH INDUSTRIES. - TTJ 069, 228, Issues involved:Appeal against cancellation of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act by Dy. CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1988-89.Detailed Analysis:1. Issue of Penalty Levied by AO:- The AO initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act due to the non-inclusion of goods in transit in the closing stock valuation, leading to an alleged suppression of income.- The AO levied a penalty of Rs. 15,000 on the assessee for this omission, citing concealment of income as the reason.2. Assessee's Explanation and Appeal:- The assessee explained that the omission was unintentional and due to lack of accounting expertise, not an attempt to conceal income.- The Dy. CIT(A) accepted the plea, canceled the penalty, and deemed the mistake as a genuine error rather than a deliberate act of concealment.3. Arguments Before the Tribunal:- The Revenue contended that the penalty cancellation was unjustified, as the goods in transit were not included in the closing stock valuation, indicating a deliberate attempt to suppress income.- The Revenue argued that the AO correctly imposed the penalty, and the Dy. CIT(A) should have upheld it.4. Defence by Assessee's Representative:- The representative of the assessee supported the penalty cancellation, stating that the omission was a genuine mistake due to the goods being in transit and not yet received by the assessee.- The representative argued that the assessee rectified the error upon identification by the AO, demonstrating good faith and lack of intent to conceal income.5. Tribunal's Decision and Legal Precedents:- The Tribunal examined the case, considering legal precedents where inadvertent errors were not penalized under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.- Citing cases such as Mahadeswara Movies vs. CIT and CIT vs. Rose Lock Factory, the Tribunal found that the mistake in this case was inadvertent and lacked conscious concealment of income.- Referring to the decision in CIT vs. India Sea Foods, the Tribunal emphasized the need for conscious concealment to justify a penalty under s. 271(1)(c).6. Final Judgment:- The Tribunal upheld the Dy. CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the penalty, ruling that the mistake was genuine and not indicative of intentional concealment of income.- Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue against the cancellation of the penalty was dismissed, affirming the Dy. CIT(A)'s order.This detailed analysis outlines the key issues, arguments presented, legal precedents considered, and the final judgment delivered by the Tribunal in the appeal against the cancellation of the penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the relevant assessment year.