Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

January 2016

Penalty – Concealment of income – Section 271(1) (c): A. Y. 2001-02 – Allowability of deduction pending consideration by High Court in appeal – Admission of appeal makes it clear that addition is debatable – No concealment of income – Penalty could not be imposed

By K. B. Bhujle Advocate
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
CIT vs. Ankita Electronics Pvt. Ltd.; 379 ITR 50 (Karn):

The assessee is engaged in the business of computer consumables. Assessee’s quantum appeal was admitted by the High Court and was pending adjudication u/s. 260A . The Tribunal cancelled the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) on account of the fact that the quantum appeal has been admitted by the High Court.

On appeal by the Revenue, the Karnataka High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:

“i) In the present case, the details of the claim were provided by the assessee. The question whether or not on such details, deduction could be allowed was still in doubt. Such questions had been admitted for determination by the High Court in the appeal filed by the assessee. The mere admission of the appeal by the High Court on the substantial question of law would make it apparent that the additions made were debatable.

ii) There was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty could not be imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.”

You May Also Like