Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Gtc Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax .

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Jul 5, 2017

Judgment

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

These are appeals filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-16, Mumbai dated 30/12/2015 for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87. The subject-matter concerns imposition of penalty in relation to the furnishing of an estimate of advance tax payable under section 212(3A) of the Income-tax Act.

The record as stated in the opinion shows that the Assessing Officer (AO) made various additions and imposed a penalty (the opinion refers to penalty u/s. 273(2)(aa) in one place and to u/s. 274(2)(aa) in other places) for allegedly furnishing a wrong estimate of advance tax. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] confirmed the AO's action by the impugned order dated 30/12/2015.

The assessee (through its Authorized Representative) placed before the court an order of the Tribunal dated 07/03/2017 in ITA Nos. 1055/Mum/1994 & 1056/Mum/1994 for the respective assessment years, in which the additions made by the AO were deleted. The assessee also produced an order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (DCIT) dated 29/03/2017 giving effect to the Tribunal's order by revising the assessed income to Rs. 3,84,14,220/-, the same amount as declared in the return of income filed on 28/06/1985.

The Departmental Representative (DR) relied upon the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). The appellate bench considered rival contentions, reviewed the orders below and the Tribunal's and DCIT's orders giving effect to the Tribunal's decision.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether a penalty imposed for furnishing a wrong estimate of advance tax (under the provisions cited in the opinion as sections 273(2)(aa) and 274(2)(aa) of the Income-tax Act) can be sustained where the additions for which the estimate was said to be wrong have subsequently been deleted by the Tribunal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's (Assessee's) Arguments

The assessee relied on the Tribunal's order dated 07/03/2017 (ITA Nos. 1055/Mum/1994 & 1056/Mum/1994) which deleted the additions made by the AO for both assessment years under consideration.
The assessee further relied on the DCIT's order dated 29/03/2017 giving effect to the Tribunal's order and revising assessed income to Rs. 3,84,14,220/-, the same as the income declared in the return filed on 28/06/1985.
On this basis the assessee contended that the penalty levied for furnishing the estimate of advance tax (which was alleged to be wrong because of the additions) "has no legs to stand" once those additions have been deleted.

Respondent's (Revenue's) Arguments

The Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) that had imposed and confirmed the penalty respectively. (No further detailed argumentation from the revenue is recorded in the provided opinion.)

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The bench noted the following factual and procedural developments and applied them in its analysis:

The Tribunal, in its order dated 07/03/2017 in ITA Nos. 1055/Mum/1994 & 1056/Mum/1994, deleted the additions that the AO had made for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87.
The DCIT, by order dated 29/03/2017, gave effect to the Tribunal's decision by revising the assessed income to Rs. 3,84,14,220/-, which the opinion records as equal to the income declared in the return filed on 28/06/1985.
The court treated the penalty as having been imposed specifically in relation to the alleged wrong furnishing of an estimate of advance tax that was premised on those additions. Because the underlying additions were deleted by the Tribunal and the assessed income was set at the declared income, the factual foundation for the penalty no longer existed.
On that basis the bench concluded that the penalty imposed (referred to variously in the opinion as under sections 273(2)(aa) and 274(2)(aa) of the IT Act) "has no legs to stand." The court therefore directed the AO to delete the penalty imposed under section 274(2)(aa) of the Act.

The opinion records both section numbers (273(2)(aa) and 274(2)(aa)) in relation to the penalty at different places. The court's operative direction is to delete the penalty under section 274(2)(aa) as stated in the order.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the tribunal directed deletion of the penalty. Specifically, the court directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed under section 274(2)(aa) of the Income-tax Act.

Implications: The direct effect of the decision is that the penalty previously levied by the AO (and confirmed by the CIT(A)) in respect of the alleged wrong estimate of advance tax is to be removed, because the additions underlying the allegation were deleted by the Tribunal and the DCIT gave effect to that deletion by restoring assessed income to the declared income. The opinion does not purport to lay down any broader legal precedent beyond the disposal of these appeals.

Show all summary ...

R.C. Sharma, A.M.:— These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- 16, Mumbai dated 30/12/2015 for the A.Y. 1985-86 and 1986-87 in the matter of imposition of penalty u/s. 274(2)(aa) of the IT Act.

2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused.

3. In both the years under consideration, AO made various additions and also imposed penalty u/s. 273(2)(aa) of the IT Act for wrong furnishing of estimate of advance tax payable by assessee u/s. 212(3A) of the IT Act.

4. By the impugned order, CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO imposing penalty u/s. 274(2)(aa) of IT Act. At the outset learned AR placed on record the order of the Tribunal in these years dated 07/03/2017 in ITA Nos. 1055/Mum/1994 & 1056/Mum/1994 for the A.Y. 1985-86 and 1986-87, wherein additions so made by the AO have been deleted. Learned AR also placed on record the order passed by the DCIT dated 29/03/2017 giving effect to the above order of the Tribunal wherein assessed income of the assessee has been reduced to the income returned by it. As the additions with respect to which estimate of advance tax so filed by assessee was found to be wrong has already been deleted by the Tribunal, it was contended by learned AR that penalty so levied for furnishing of estimate of advance tax, has no legs to stand.

5. On the other hand, learned DR relied on the order of the AO and CIT(A).

6. We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. We had also gone through the orders of the Tribunal in quantum appeal dated 07/03/2017 for the A.Y. 1985-86 and 1986-87 wherein additions so made have been deleted by the Tribunal. We have also gone through the order passed by the DCIT dated 29/03/2017 for the A.Y. 1985-86, being the order giving effect to the order of the Tribunal revising income at Rs. 3,84,14,220/- which is same as the declared income by the assessee as per the return of income filed on 28/06/1985. As the additions for which estimate of advance tax filed by the assessee was held to be wrong by the AO, have already been deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty so imposed u/s. 273(2)(aa) has no legs to stand.

7. Similarly, additions in the A.Y. 1986-87 have also been deleted by the order of the Tribunal dated 07/03/2017, for furnishing estimate of advance tax the penalty so imposed has no legs to stand. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete penalty so imposed u/s. 274(2)(aa) of the IT Act.

8. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.