1999 (1) TMI 69 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds CIT(A) Decision: Penalty Deletion under Income Tax Act Justified

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. Versus SHARP SPRINGS & STAPLES CO. (P) LTD.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. Versus SHARP SPRINGS & STAPLES CO. (P) LTD. - TTJ 065, 074, Issues Involved:1. Deletion of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.2. Validity of the provisional return filed by the assessee.3. Justification for the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO).4. Enhancement of penalty by the AO under section 154.Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):The Department appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty of Rs. 66,932 levied under section 271(1)(c). The assessee-company, engaged in manufacturing refills and springs for ball pens, had its premises searched, and several books of accounts were seized. The assessee filed a provisional return on 24th March 1984, declaring an income of Rs. 1,60,000 due to the seizure of its books. A final return was filed on 19th March 1986, declaring an income of Rs. 2,44,760. The AO computed the total income at Rs. 2,57,820 and initiated penalty proceedings, considering the provisional return as the basis for concealment. The CIT(A) found no material defects in the books after an audit under section 142(2A) and noted that the IAC's instructions under section 144A did not suggest any concealment. The CIT(A) concluded that the AO's reliance on the provisional return for levying penalty was unjustified, as the final return filed on 19th March 1986 was the valid return.2. Validity of the Provisional Return:The assessee argued that the provisional return was filed due to the seizure of its books and the refusal of an extension for filing the return. The CIT(A) observed that the AO could not consider the provisional return invalid for assessment purposes and valid for levying a penalty. The final return filed on 19th March 1986, which declared an income of Rs. 2,44,760, was considered the valid return. The AO's refusal to extend the filing time despite the seizure of books was deemed unreasonable.3. Justification for Additions by AO:The AO made three additions to the returned income: cash credits totaling Rs. 3,153, unexplained cash credits of Rs. 10,275, and an outstanding sales-tax liability of Rs. 2,903. The CIT(A) deleted the sales-tax liability addition, and the AO concluded that the assessee concealed particulars of income. However, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found that the mere fact of cash credits being added under section 68 did not automatically justify penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal cited decisions from higher courts, emphasizing that concealment must be clearly established by the AO.4. Enhancement of Penalty under Section 154:The AO, in a rectification order under section 154, enhanced the penalty from Rs. 66,932 to Rs. 1,57,132, claiming a mistake in the original penalty order. The CIT(A) cancelled this rectification order, considering it academic since the original penalty order was already cancelled on merits. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that there was no need to interfere with the rectification order as the original penalty itself was unjustified.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified. The provisional return filed due to the seizure of books and the AO's refusal to extend the filing time was considered bona fide. The final return filed on 19th March 1986 was the valid return, and the minor additions made by the AO did not indicate concealment of income. Consequently, both appeals by the Department were dismissed.