Ahamedsaib Babu, Vellore V. ITO, Vellore

ITA 201/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6111 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 19-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MANOHAR DOSS
• Keywords: Business income; Difference of opinion
• Section: 2; 139

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI , ! ' . #$ % &' BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS.200 & 201/MDS./2016 / ASSESSMENT YEARS :2011-12 & 2011-12 MR.AHAMED BABU , PROP., NO.9,SOUTH VANNIYAR STREET, SHOLINGHUR,WALAJA, VELLORE 631 102. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(6), VELLORE-631 102. [PAN BCRPB 7347 F ] ( () / APPELLANT) ( *+() /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR.MANOHAR DOSS,ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR.A.R.V.SREENIVASAN, JCIT, D.R / DATE OF HEARING : 22 - 09 - 2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 - 09 - 2017 , / O R D E R PER BENCH THESE TWO APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED A GAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-13, CHENNAI, ONE APPEAL PASSED UNDER SECTION 271B & AN OTHER APPEAL ITA NOS.200 & 201/MDS./16 :- 2 -: PASSED U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN ITA NO.251/2011 -12/CIT(A)-13, DATED 21.12.2015 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 1-12. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP ITA NO.200/MDS./2016 (PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271B) THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y 2011-12 ADMITTING A TOTAL INC OME OF ` 2,41,850/- AND AN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 3,00,000/- ON 24.0 01.2012. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE COURSE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT OUT OF CA SH DEPOSITS IN THE CURRENT AND SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT OF ` 1,37,13,230/-, AN AMOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF ` 91,10,351/- WAS HIS UNDISCLOSED SALES RECEIPT EXCLU DING SALES, JOB WORK RECEIPTS, AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS OF ` 25 LAKHS AND MISCELLANEOUS INCOME. THE AO ESTIMATED THE PROFIT O N BUSINESS RECEIPTS @ 10% OF ` 96,L0,351/-, WHICH WORKED OUT AT ` 9,61,035/- INSTEAD OF 8% OF ` 96,10,351/- AGAINST ` 7,28,828/- OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND COMP LETED THE ASSESSMENT BY MAKING AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ESTI MATED PROFIT AT BUSINESS RECEIPTS OF ` 96,10,351/- WHICH COMES TO ` 9,61,035/-. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE HIMSELF HA S ACCEPTED THE UNDISCLOSED TURNOVER OF ` 91,10,351/- WHICH CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT ASSESSEES TURNOVER EXCEEDED THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT T O GET HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED U/S.44AB. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE AUD ITED REPORT ITA NOS.200 & 201/MDS./16 :- 3 -: U/S.44AB, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AND PE NALTY TO THE TUNE OF ` 52,750/- WAS LEVIED U/S.271B OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED , THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). 2.1 BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE PROTESTED T HE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271B OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO LD.CIT(A), AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED REPORT U/S.44AB (AUDITED REPORT) AND THE RETURN WAS FILED AFTER THE DUE DATE, PRESCRIBED U/S.139(2) OF THE AC T, THE PENALTY NOTICE U/S.271B WAS ISSUED ON 20.03.2014, POSTING CASE FOR HEARING ON 27.04.2014. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE . AFTERWARDS, THE DEPARTMENT ISSUED LETTERS DATED 01.07.2014 & 07 .08.2014 POSTING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 25.07.2014 & 12.08.2014. EV EN THEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER FILED A LETTER NOR APPEARED, E ITHER PERSONALLY NOR THROUGH ANY REPRESENTATIVE. FINALLY, A LETTER DATE D 27.08.2014 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR WITHOUT FAIL ON 05 .09.2014. THE ASSESSEE CHOSE NOT TO APPEAR FOR THE ONE MORE OPPOR TUNITY GIVEN. THOUGH IN THE HEARING LETTER IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONE D THAT NO FURTHER OPPORTUNITY WILL BE GIVEN, THE ASSESSEE WILLFULLY A VOIDING TO PRESENT HIS CASE. ACCORDING TO LD.CIT(A), SINCE THE ASSESSEE AC CEPTED CLEARLY IN THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, THAT THE UNDISCLOSED RECEIPT S ARE SO MUCH, HE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY MORE EXPLANATION OF OFFER. THER EFORE, LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THIS CASE IS FIT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY/ S.271B OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED PENALTY AT 0.5% ON THE TOTAL TURNOVER ITA NOS.200 & 201/MDS./16 :- 4 -: OF ` 1,05,49,155/- (TURNOVER ADMITTED +UNDISCLOSED TURNO VER) EXCLUDING THE AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS OF ` 20 LAKHS. THUS, PENALTY OF ` 52,750/- WAS LEVIED U/S.271B OF THE ACT. AGAINST THE ORDER OF L D.CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271B OF THE ACT, NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE IS DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF DEPOSITS IN SB A/C AND CURRENT A/C AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE RETURN WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED WITH THE AUDIT REPORT U/S.44AB OF THE ACT. SINCE TH E TURNOVER DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF FILING HIS RETURN W AS SAID TO BE LESS THAN ` 40 LAKHS TURNOVER AND IT WAS INCREASED DUE TO CONSI DERING THE DEPOSIT IN SB A/C AND CURRENT A/C AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT . THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF THE SEC TION 271B OF THE ACT AND LEVIED PENALTY OF ` 1.5 LAKHS AS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE NOT AUDITED BY THE ASSESSEES C.A AND NO TAX REPORT WAS FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, THOUGH THE ASSESSED TURNOVER OF ASSESSEE WAS SAID TO BE EXCEEDED ` 40 LAKHS. 3.1 AT THIS STAGE, IT IS PERTINENT TO GO THROUGH THE JUDGMENT OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BAJRANG OIL MIL LS VS. ITO, 295 ITR 314, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SUB-SECTION (9) OF SECTION 139 OPERATES WHERE A RETURN HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE A SSESSING OFFICER ITA NOS.200 & 201/MDS./16 :- 5 -: CONSIDERS WHETHER THE RETURN OF INCOME FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DEFECTIVE. IT REQUIRES THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHERE HE FINDS THAT THE RETURN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DEFECTIVE, HE MUST GIV E HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECTIFY THE DEFECT WITHIN A PERIOD OF FIFTEEN DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH INTIMATION OR WITHIN SUCH FURTHER PERIOD WHICH, ON AN APPLICATION MADE IN THIS BEHALF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY, IN HIS DISCRETIO N, ALLOW; AND IF THE DEFECT IS NOT REMOVED WITHIN THE SAID PERIOD OF FIFTEEN DAYS OR WITHIN THE EXTENDED PERIOD AS MAY BE ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE RETURN HAS TO BE TREATED AS INVALID AND THE ASSESSEE IS CONSIDERED T O HAVE FAILED TO FURNISH THE RETURN. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(9) IS OF SING ULAR IMPORTANCE FROM THE POINT OF VIEW TO ALLOW A CHANCE TO THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE HIS RETURN COMPLETE AND SPECIFY THE DEFECTS WHICH ARE CURABLE AND FOR T HE PURPOSE OF CURING THAT DEFECT AN OPPORTUNITY HAS TO BE OFFERED TO THE ASSE SSEE BEFORE THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH DEFECTS FOLLOW. IN OTHER WORDS , THE CONSEQUENCE OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF FURNISHING OF A VALID RETURN TAKES EFFECT ONLY AFTER THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO REMOVE THE DEFECTS WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNTIL THE ASSESSEE HAS OPPORTUNITY TO REMOV E SUCH DEFECTS, THE CONSEQUENCE OF SUCH FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SUCH DEF ECTS CANNOT FOLLOW. IF NO SUCH REPORT IS SUBMITTED THE QUESTION MAY NOT CARRY FURTHER AS IN THAT EVENT THE RETURN ITSELF BECOMES INVALID AND IT BECOMES A CASE WHERE IT IS TO BE DEEMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY R ETURN WHICH MAY LEAD TO CONSEQUENCE OF DEFAULT IN FILING THE RETURN. HENCE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE IS ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE AUDIT REPORT U/S.44AB OF THE ACT AT THE REQUEST OF THE LD. ASSES SING OFFICER. BEING SO, BY ITA NOS.200 & 201/MDS./16 :- 6 -: PLACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BAFRANG OIL MILLS (SUPRA), WE ARE INCLINED TO DELET E THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271B OF THE ACT. 4 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 200/MDS./2016 IS ALLOWED. 5. NEXT WE TAKE UP ITA NO.201/MDS./2016 (PENALTY LEVIE D U/S.271(1)(C)) THE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO LEVY O F PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AT ` 4 LAKHS. 5.1 THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE SIMILAR TO EARLIER A PPEAL HEREIN, ONLY DIFFERENCE IS LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 5.2 PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT W ERE INITIATED BY A.O AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE FULL PART ICULARS OF INCOME AND PENALTY TO THE TUNE OF ` 4 LAKHS WAS LEVIED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF CONCEALED INCOME DOES NOT ABSOLVE FRO M PENALTY BUT IT CAN ONLY BE A CIRCUMSTANCE IN DETERMINING THE QUANT UM OF PENALTY. ACCORDING TO LD.CIT(A), THE AO HAD ONLY LEVIED MINI MUM AMOUNT. IT CANNOT BE LAID DOWN AS A GENERAL PROPOSITION THAT N O PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED FOR AGREED ASSESSMENT; ASSESSEE HAVING ADM ITTED THAT OUT OF CASH DEPOSITS OF ` 1,37,13,230/-, THE SUM OF ` 91,10,351/- WERE THE UNDISCLOSED SALE RECEIPTS AND FURTHER OUT OF ` 25 LAKHS SHOWN AS ITA NOS.200 & 201/MDS./16 :- 7 -: AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS, ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT ` 5 LACKS WERE UNDISCLOSED TIMBER BUSINESS RECEIPTS, THUS IN ALL ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED TOTAL OF UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS RECEIPTS FOR ` 96,10,351/- AND ON SUCH UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS RECEIPTS AO HAS QUANTIFIED THE UNACCOUNTED PROFIT @10% WHICH WAS AGREED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THUS PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C ) WAS CLEARL Y LEVIED ON CONCEALED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE S AME, THE AO HAS FIRST FOUND OUT INCOME WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED BEFO RE THE DEPARTMENT AND FROM THE UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS ESTIMATED THE UNA CCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO LD.CIT(A), IT IS A CL EAR CUT OF CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND THE AO IS RIGHT IN LEVYIN G PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. HENCE, THE IMPO SITION OF PENALTY IS CONFIRMED BY LD.CIT(A). AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT (A), NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS AGREED BEFORE THE AO THAT THERE WAS A CASH DEPOSIT OF ` 1,37,13,230/-, AND OUT OF THIS, A SUM OF ` 91,10,351 WAS UNDISCLOSED SALES RECEIPT EXCLUDING SALES, JOB WORK RECEIPTS, AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS OF ` 25 LAKHS AND MISCELLANEOUS INCOME. THE AO ESTIMATED THE PROFIT @ 10% OF THE UNDISCLOSED SALES . THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.A.R IS THAT THE INCOME IS ESTIMATED HEREIN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO CONSIDERED ` 5 LAKHS OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS TIMBER BUSINE SS ITA NOS.200 & 201/MDS./16 :- 8 -: RECEIPTS. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.AR IS THAT THE INCOME IS ESTIMATED HEREIN, THEREFORE, PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED AS THER E IS NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF FOR UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE L D.DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6.1 IN OUR OPINION, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE PENALT Y HAS BEEN LEVIED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATED INCOME. THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ESTIMATED IN RESPECT OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AS SEEN FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT IS ALSO NOTED T HAT THE OTHER INCOME IS CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS ON ACCOUNT O F ADMISSION BY THE ASSESSEE. BEING ON THIS COUNT ALSO PENALTY CANNOT B E LEVIED. IN ENTIRETY, IN THIS CASE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE H AS BEEN DETERMINED ON ESTIMATE BASIS. THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THERE IS ACTUAL CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THOUGH THE ADDITION I S CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A), IT DOES NOT PROVE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS THE MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED EXACT AMOUNT OF PR OFIT AS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF THESE UN ACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS. 6.2 IN OUR OPINION, THE PENALTY IS NOT MANDATORY I F THE ASSESSEE OFFERS CONVINCING REASONS OR IF ANY REASONABLE CAUS E DEMONSTRATED FOR NON-INCLUSION OF SUCH INCOME, PENALTY IS NOT ATTRAC TED. 6.3 IN THE CASE OF SMT. MALA DAYANIDHI V. DY. CIT [2004] 91 ITD 46(BANG.) IT WAS HELD THAT ADDITION NOT BASED ON MA TERIAL FOUND DURING ITA NOS.200 & 201/MDS./16 :- 9 -: THE SEARCH OR MATERIAL IN POSSESSION OF ASSESSING O FFICER BUT BASED ON DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION OF PROPERTY, AS DISCLOSED B Y THE ASSESSEE AND AS ESTIMATED BY THE DVO, THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT ATTR ACTING PENALTY U/S. 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT. IN THE INSTANT CASE THER E WAS A ESTIMATE AT THE LEVEL OF ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS AT THE LE VEL OF CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. FROM THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT WOULD BE CLEAR THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS ESTIMATED AND MATERIAL ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ENOUGH TO LEVY PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. IN OUR OPINION, UNLESS THERE IS CONCLUSIVE MATERIAL SHOWING THE EXACT AMOUNT OF CON CEALMENT OF INCOME NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE ON THE ADDITION IF MA DE ON ESTIMATE BASIS. WHILE TAKING SUCH A VIEW, WE ARE FORTIFIED B Y THE JUDGEMENT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. P REM DAS (NO. 1) [2001] 248 ITR 234/ 118 TAXMAN 619(PUNJ. & HAR.), W HEREIN IT WAS HELD AT PAGE 236 AS UNDER: 'WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES FROM THE GROSS FREIGHT RECEIPTS IN RESPECT OF HIS OWN TRUCKS ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND HAD SHOWN INCOME FROM COMMISSION AT 7 PER CENT OF T HE GROSS RECEIPTS IN RESPECT OF THE TRUCKS OWNED BY OTHERS. THE AO HAD A LLOWED EXPENDITURE AT 80 PER CENT. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED EXPENDITURE AT 8 4 PER CENT. SIMILARLY, WHEREAS THE AO HAD ESTIMATED INCOME FROM COMMISSION AT 10 PER CENT, THE CIT ALLOWED IT AT 8 PER CENT. THE TRIBUNAL FOUN D THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RETURNED AND THE ASSESSED INCOME WAS DU E TO THE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ABOUT THE ESTIMATED RATES OF INCOME AND EXPENDITURE. INCOME HAD BEEN ENHANCED BY THE AO BY ADOPTING A LOWER EST IMATE IN RESPECT OF ITA NOS.200 & 201/MDS./16 :- 10 - : THE EXPENDITURE AND HIGHER ESTIMATE WITH REGARD TO THE INCOME FROM COMMISSION. THE AO DETERMINED THE INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE ON ESTIMATE BASIS. THE TRIBUNAL NOTICED THAT SINCE THE DIFFEREN CE IN ESTIMATES WAS BASED ON A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, THERE WAS NO POSI TIVE PROOF REGARDING CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN EXPENDITURE AS ALSO THE INCOME FROM COMMISSION ON E STIMATE BASIS. THE RATES OF ESTIMATE WERE VARIED BY THE AO. THESE WERE FURTHER VARIED BY THE CIT(A). THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, CANCELLED THE PENALTY ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE TO PROVE SUPPRE SSION OF INCOME. ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER, IT IS NOTICED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD RETURNED INCOME ON ESTIMATE BASIS. THE AO AND THE C IT ADOPTED DIFFERENT ESTIMATES. IT WAS, THUS, A CASE OF DIFFERENCE OF OP INION.' 6 .4 FROM THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT, IT IS CLEAR THAT WHE N THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) ADOPTED FIGURES OF INCOME ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND IT IS A CASE OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN T HE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE DEPARTMENT AND THAT REASON CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. BEING SO, WHATEVER SAID BY THE PUNJAB & HA RYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CITED SUPRA WITH REGARD TO PROVISIONS O F SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT IS APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CAS E. FURTHER AS NOTED FROM THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE VARIOUS TRIBUNALS HAVE HELD THAT UNLESS ANY POSITIVE CONCEA LMENT IS FOUND, NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE ON THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ESTIMA TE BASIS. IN THE CASE OF HARIGOPAL SINGH V. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85/ 1 25 TAXMAN 242(PUNJ. & HAR.) IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESS MENT IS MADE ON ESTIMATE BASIS, NO PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE AC T CAN BE IMPOSED. IN THAT CASE IT WAS OBSERVED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF MERE D IFFERENCE OF ITA NOS.200 & 201/MDS./16 :- 11 - : OPINION AS REGARDS THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE TRIBUNAL ADOPTE D DIFFERENT ASSESSMENTS FOR ASCERTAINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICU LARS OF HIS INCOME SO AS TO ATTRACT PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF AND BY THE DEPARTMENT. BEING SO, TH E DIFFERENCE IS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN OPINION IN DETERMINING THE INCOME. THAT DIFFERENCE IN OPINION AMONG THE PARTIES CANNOT RESU LT IN LEVY OF PENALTY. 6.5 FURTHER THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HIND USTAN STEEL LTD. (83 ITR 26) HELD AS UNDER: ' AN ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO CARRY OUT A STATUTORY OBLIGATION IS THE RESULT OF A QUASI CRIMINAL PROCEE DINGS AND PENALTY WILL NOT ORDINARILY BE IMPOSED UNLESS THE PARTY OBL IGED, EITHER ACTED DELIBERATELY IN DEFIANCE OF LAW WAS GUILTY OF CONDU CT CONTUMACIOUS OR DISHONEST, OR ACTED IN CONSCIOUS DISREGARD OF IT S OBLIGATION. PENALTY WILL NOT ALSO BE IMPOSED MERELY BECAUSE IT IS LAWFUL TO DO SO. WHETHER PENALTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE T O PERFORM A STATUTORY OBLIGATION IS A MATTER OF DISCRETION OF T HE AUTHORITY TO BE EXERCISED JUDICIALLY AND ON A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES. EVEN IF A MINIMUM PENALTY IS PRESCRI BED, THE AUTHORITY COMPETENT TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY WILL BE J USTIFIED IN REFUSING TO IMPOSE PENALTY, WHEN THERE IS A TECHNIC AL OR VENIAL BREACH OF PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR WHICH THE BREACH FLOWS FROM A ITA NOS.200 & 201/MDS./16 :- 12 - : BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT THE OFFENDER IS NOT LIABLE TO ACT IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE.' 6.6 IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, WE AR E OF THE OPINION THAT IT WOULD BE WITHIN THE POWER OF THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES NOT TO LEVY PENALTY HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF MISTAKE OR OMISSION COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND GENERAL CONDUCT OF TH E ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND SUCH OTHER REL EVANT FACTORS. 6.7 IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SURESH CHANDRA MITTAL [ 2001] 251 ITR 9/ 119 TAXMAN 435(SC) THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD T HAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE OFFERED ADDITIONAL INCOME ONLY TO BUY PEACE AND AVOID LITIGATION AND THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT PRO VE CONCEALMENT BUT SIMPLY RESTED ITS CONCLUSION ON THE VOLUNTARY SURRE NDER OF INCOME BY ASSESSEE IN GOOD FAITH, NO PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME CAN BE LEVIED. IN OUR OPINION, THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFOR E US ARE FULLY COVERED BY THIS DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT. 6.8 IN THE CASE OF CIT V. KHODAY ESWARSA & SONS [ 1972] 83 ITR 369(SC) HON'BLE APEX COURT HELD THAT BEFORE LEVYING PENALTY THE DEPARTMENT MUST SHOW THAT ASSESSEE HAD CONSCIOUSLY CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME AND DELIBERATELY FURNISHE D INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF THE SAME. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE D EPARTMENT IS NOT ITA NOS.200 & 201/MDS./16 :- 13 - : ABLE TO ESTABLISH EITHER CONSCIOUS OR DELIBERATE CO NCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME B Y THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY HAS NOT CONCEALED THE PARTICU LARS. 6.9 THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE ADDITION ONLY W ITH THE SOLE INTENTION TO AVOID LITIGATION AND BECAUSE THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT GONE IN APPEAL AGAINST THE QUANTUM ADDITION, IT DOES NOT AU TOMATICALLY QUALIFY FOR LEVY OF PENALTY AND IT DOES NOT ENTAIL THE DEPA RTMENT TO LEVY PENALTY. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT AUTOMATIC AND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE TWO DIF FERENT PROCEEDINGS. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE REQUIRED T O EXAMINE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INDEPENDENTLY AND ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS SEEN FROM THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED THE ADDI TION ONLY TO AVOID LITIGATION AND TO BUY PEACE WITH THE DEPARTMENT. TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) GIVES DISCRETIONARY POWER TO ASSE SSING OFFICER TO LEVY PENALTY. THIS DISCRETION SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE ADDIT IONS ARE CONFIRMED EITHER BY THE CIT(A) ON ESTIMATED BASIS. BEING SO, WHERE THE PROVISIONS BEGIN WITH THE WORD 'MAY' AND NOT 'SHALL ' AND THE WORD ITA NOS.200 & 201/MDS./16 :- 14 - : 'MAY DIRECT' IN SECTION 271(1)(C)) DO INDICATE THA T A DISCRETIONARY POWER IS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND T HE CIT(A) TO LEVY PENALTY EVEN WHERE TECHNICALLY THE PROVISIONS ARE A TTRACTED. BEING SO, IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGEMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD., POSTULATES THE SITUATION THAT PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED IN THE PRESENT CASE. 7. IN OUR OPINION, THIS CASE IS NOT FIT CASE TO L EVY PENALTY THOUGH CERTAIN ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WER E CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE ENTIRE PENALTY AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7.1 IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSE E ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 27 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ! ' # . $ %& ' ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ) % / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER () / CHENNAI *+ / DATED: 27 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017. K S SUNDARAM +,-- ./-0/ / COPY TO: - 1 . / APPELLANT 3. - 1-!' / CIT(A) 5. /23- 4 / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. - 1 / CIT 6. 3&-5 / GF