CIT v. P. Rojes - Taxpublishers.in

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax PublishersTax Case (Appeal) No. 341 of 2010 2013 TaxPub(DT) 2107 (Mad-HC) : (2013) 356 ITR 0703 : (2013) 260 CTR 0397 : (2013) 090 DTR 0393 Income Tax Act, 1961 --Penalty under section 271(1)(c)Leviability Addition made on estimate basis--During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee agreed for estimation of income at Rs. 3,92,649 which was enhanced by assessing officer to Rs.6,28,240. Consequently, assessing officer imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c). Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the penalty. Tribunal reversed the order of Commissioner (Appeals). *Held:* It was not clear as to whether it was a case of suppression of turnover or of estimation of income at a lower rate. When the revenue itself had not come out with clear case of suppression of turnover and where there was no specific finding with regard to such factual aspect, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not warranted. Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 271(1)(c) In the Madras High Court R. Banumathi & K. Ravichandra Baabu, J.J. CIT v. P. Rojes Tax Case (Appeal) No. 341 of 2010 A.Y. 2005-06 5 February, 2013 Appellant by : M. Swaminathan Respondent by : J. Balachander JUDGMENT *K. Ravichandra Baabu, J.* The Revenue is on appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA. No. 531/Mad/2009 dated 5-10-2009, for the relevant assessment year 2005-06 by raising the following substantial question of law : 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty contrary to the law laid down in Union of India & Ors. v. Dharamendra Textile Processors & Ors. 2008 TaxPub(DT) 2320 (SC) : (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) by the Apex Court?' SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax PublishersTax Case (Appeal) No. 341 of 2010
2013 TaxPub(DT) 2107 (Mad-HC) : (2013) 356 ITR 0703 : (2013) 260 CTR 0397 : (2013) 090 DTR 0393

Income Tax Act, 1961

--Penalty under section 271(1)(c)Leviability Addition made on estimate basis--During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee agreed for estimation of income at Rs. 3,92,649 which was enhanced by assessing officer to Rs.6,28,240. Consequently, assessing officer imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c). Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the penalty. Tribunal reversed the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Held: It was not clear as to whether it was a case of suppression of turnover or of estimation of income at a lower rate. When the revenue itself had not come out with clear case of suppression of turnover and where there was no specific finding with regard to such factual aspect, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not warranted.

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 271(1)(c)

In the Madras High Court

R. Banumathi & K. Ravichandra Baabu, J.J.

CIT v. P. Rojes

Tax Case (Appeal) No. 341 of 2010

A.Y. 2005-06

5 February, 2013

Appellant by : M. Swaminathan

Respondent by : J. Balachander

JUDGMENT

K. Ravichandra Baabu, J.

The Revenue is on appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA. No. 531/Mad/2009 dated 5-10-2009, for the relevant assessment year 2005-06 by raising the following substantial question of law :

'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty contrary to the law laid down in Union of India & Ors. v. Dharamendra Textile Processors & Ors. 2008 TaxPub(DT) 2320 (SC) : (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) by the Apex Court?'