2025 (2) TMI 650 - AT - Income Tax

Section 271(1)(c) penalty invalid when income determined through estimation rather than actual concealment of facts

AKM Resorts Versus The ACIT, Circle-5 (1), Chandigarh.

The ITAT Chandigarh held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when income is determined on estimated basis rather than actual ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Addition made applying NP rate of 24.50% while the books of account were rejected - HELD THAT:- When the AO resorts to estimating income rather than relying on documented financial records, it cannot be inferred that the taxpayer has engaged in concealment or provided inaccurate particulars of income. Consequently, since the additions arise from estimation rather than deliberate ‘misrepresentation’ penalty is unwarranted. In the present case, AO estimated the profit at 24.50% as opposed to the 22.72% declared by the assessee, pursuant to the provisions of Section 145(3) due to the rejection of the books of accounts. The assessee, however, has provided financial statements from comparable resorts, demonstrating that the net profit declared by the assessee was reasonably high in comparison to that of other taxpayers engaged in the same line of business. This evidence suggests that the profit margin declared by the assessee is not only justifiable but also aligns with industry standards, thereby undermining the AO's rationale for estimating a higher profit percentage without adequate justification. Assessee has relied upon following decisions in support of their plea that when income of the assessee is determined on an estimated basis, it follows that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be imposed for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Thus we are of the considered view that since quantum assessment order was based on application of estimated rate of NP @ 24.50% which was found to be applicable and that same was accepted by the Revenue the charge of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) does not survive. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and penalty is deleted. Assessee appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained where the Assessing Officer makes additions to income by estimating net profit rate after rejecting books of account. 2. Whether estimation-based additions, accepted as reasonable by the Revenue, establish concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c). 3. Whether the absence of specific identification of inaccurate particulars or demonstrable intention to conceal precludes imposition of penalty where assessment is based on estimation. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Sustenance of Section 271(1)(c) penalty when additions arise from estimation after rejection of books Legal framework: Section 145(3) permits the AO to make an assessment under Section 144 where he is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of accounts; Section 271(1)(c) penalises concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Precedent treatment: The assessee relied on earlier decisions to the effect that penalty cannot be imposed where income is determined on estimation basis; the Tribunal considered these precedents as supportive of the principle invoked (as relied upon in the record). Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the assessment which rejected books and computed income by applying an estimated net profit (NP) rate of 24.50% on gross receipts, resulting in an addition. The Tribunal observed that estimation reflects the AO's exercise in the face of incomplete or unreliable records rather than a finding of deliberate concealment by the taxpayer. Where the AO himself frames the taxpayer's income by estimation - and particularly where the estimation endorsed or accepted the taxpayer's own comparative data as tenable - the essential element of mens rea for Section 271(1)(c) (willful concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) is not established by the mere fact of an estimated addition. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained solely because of an addition made by the AO on estimation after rejection of books; estimation does not ipso facto demonstrate concealment or inaccurate particulars. Obiter - Observations on the reasonableness of comparing industry comparables to support the declared NP rate. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed where the addition arises from estimation of income following rejection of books, particularly where the estimated rate was reasonable and the Revenue accepted its tenability. Issue 2 - Whether estimation accepted as reasonable by Revenue negates finding of concealment or inaccuracy Legal framework: Elements of Section 271(1)(c) require concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars; proof of intention or wilful conduct is relevant. Section 145(3) empowers AO to estimate in certain circumstances. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal noted reliance on judicial decisions accepting the proposition that estimation-based assessments do not automatically give rise to penalty; such authorities were treated as supportive and applied rather than distinguished. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal considered that the assessee produced comparative financials of similar businesses which demonstrated that the declared NP rate was not unreasonable. The AO applied an estimated NP rate but the assessment record showed acceptance of the estimation as tenable. Where the Revenue accepts or applies an estimated basis rather than alleging deliberate misstatement, the causal link between estimation and a finding of deliberate concealment is missing. The Tribunal emphasized that estimation indicates uncertainty and lack of precise evidence, which is inconsistent with a conclusion of deliberate misrepresentation required for penalty. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Acceptance or application of an estimated income figure by the Revenue, in the absence of isolated findings of deliberate misrepresentation, negates the justification for imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Obiter - Remarks on the probative value of industry comparables when assessing reasonableness of declared profit ratios. Conclusion: Because the estimation was accepted as reasonable and there was no material establishing deliberate concealment or inaccurate particulars, imposition of penalty was unjustified. Issue 3 - Requirement of specific identification of inaccurate particulars and demonstration of default Legal framework: Section 271(1)(c) contemplates penalty when income is concealed or inaccurate particulars are furnished; procedural fairness requires that the basis of alleged default be identifiable and supported by evidence of intentional wrongdoing. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal referenced the general jurisprudential principle (as invoked in the record) that estimation-based additions do not substitute for proof of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars; these authorities were applied to the facts. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the show-cause/penalty notices did not point to specific inaccurate particulars distinct from the quantum determined by estimation. The AO reached findings on quantum by estimation after rejecting books but did not demonstrate that the taxpayer had knowingly provided false particulars or wilfully concealed income. The Tribunal held that failure to produce records or respond to notices, while relevant to proceedings, cannot alone support a finding of deliberate concealment where the AO himself resorts to estimation under Section 145(3). Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Imposition of penalty requires identification of inaccurate particulars or evidence of concealment; absence of such specific findings precludes penalty where assessment rests on estimation. Obiter - Comments on the relevance of non-response to show-cause notices as indicating possible acceptance but insufficient to prove mens rea without other material. Conclusion: The Tribunal found no specific identification of inaccurate particulars nor independent proof of concealment; consequently, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. Overall Conclusion and Disposition The Tribunal set aside the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) imposed in respect of the addition made by estimating net profit rate after rejection of books. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that estimation-based assessment, accepted as reasonable by Revenue and unsupported by specific findings of concealment or inaccurate particulars, does not furnish a legal basis for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c).