Facts of the Case
The assessee had commenced a dairy business under the
“Kamdhenu Yojna” of the Uttar Pradesh Government by obtaining a bank loan of
₹91,00,000. This was the first year of business. The assessee declared:
- Dairy
income of ₹31,177
- Agricultural
income of ₹15,70,200
The return of income was filed manually and not in accordance
with Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Consequently, it was treated as
invalid.
During assessment proceedings, various notices were issued
requiring explanation of sources of income and bank deposits. Due to lack of
proof for agricultural income of ₹4,59,800, the Assessing Officer treated that
amount as income from dairy business and added it to total income. Further
additions were made for:
- Interest
credited in bank accounts of ₹42,770 not disclosed in return
- Insurance
claim receipt of ₹1,53,000 treated as income due to absence of evidence
Assessment was completed at total income of ₹6,55,570.
Subsequently, penalty of ₹1,15,594 was imposed under Section 270A of the Income
Tax Act.
Issues Involved
- Whether
penalty under Section 270A can be imposed on income assessed on
estimation.
- Whether
absence of documentary evidence for agricultural income amounts to
misreporting or concealment.
- Whether
the assessee had suppressed facts or furnished inaccurate particulars.
- Whether
the NFAC was justified in upholding the penalty.
Petitioner’s Arguments (Assessee)
The assessee contended that:
- There
was no concealment of income; all income and deposits were disclosed.
- Bank
deposits had been examined during assessment proceedings.
- The
penalty was imposed on estimated additions, which is not permissible.
- Proof
of agricultural income amounting to ₹11,10,200 had been furnished.
- Agricultural
produce is often sold in local markets without formal receipts.
- The
dairy business had commenced only in that year.
- The
assessed tax along with interest had already been paid under financial
hardship.
Respondent’s Arguments (Revenue)
The Revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities,
maintaining that penalty was rightly imposed due to failure to substantiate the
agricultural income claim and other additions.
Court Order / Findings (ITAT Allahabad)
- The
additions were based on estimation due to absence of supporting evidence.
- The
assessee had disclosed the income; there was no suppression of facts.
- Failure
to substantiate agricultural income does not automatically imply
misreporting.
- For
penalty under Section 270A, conditions relating to under-reporting or
misreporting of income must be satisfied.
The Tribunal concluded that neither concealment nor
misreporting as contemplated under Section 270A(9) was established.
The Tribunal relied on several judicial precedents, including:
- Prem
Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC
- Pr.
CIT v. Gruh Finance Ltd. (Supreme Court)
- CIT
v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
- CIT
v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (Supreme Court)
- Other
relevant decisions
Accordingly, the penalty was held to be unjustified.
Important Clarification
Penalty under Section 270A
cannot be levied merely because additions are made on estimation.
Absence of evidence does
not automatically establish concealment or misreporting.
Agricultural income
transactions may lack formal documentation due to rural practices.
Penalty provisions must be
strictly construed and applied only when statutory conditions are satisfied.
Disclosure of income in
return negates allegations of suppression unless deliberate falsity is proven.
Link to download the order - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1771228885_AJITTRIPATHIALLAHABADVS.NFACNEWDELHINEWDELHI.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and
knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information
from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or
advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability
arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the
assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment