Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 3084 2008 SLD 3084 (2008) 301 ITR 66
Karnataka High Court
IT APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2002 OCTOBER 24, 2007
K.L. MANJUNATH AND ARALI NAGARAJ, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Commissioner of Income-tax * v. Altron Electronics (India) Ltd.

Law:

Section:

Section 271(1)(c), read with section 274, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Deputy Commissioner issued show-cause notices to assessee-company calling upon it to show cause as to why penalty under section 271(1)(c) should not be levied on it - However, assessee failed to show cause and Deputy Commissioner levied penalty on it - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals), after examining records produced by assessee, held that there was no concealment and, accordingly, deleted penalty - Tribunal upheld order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Whether even if assessee had shown cause before Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) was of opinion that cause shown by assessee was acceptable, proper course for him was to remand matter to Deputy Commissioner to consider case of assessee on merits - Held, yes - Whether therefore, orders of Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal were to be set aside and matter was to be remanded to Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration in accordance with law - Held, yes FACTS The Deputy Commissioner issued show-cause notices to the assessee-company calling upon it to show cause as to why penalty should not be levied upon it under section 271(1)(c). As the assessee failed to send any response, the Deputy Commissioner levied penalty on it. On appArvind eal, the Commissioner (Appeals), after examining the records produced by the assessee, held that there was no scope or basis for the Deputy Commissioner to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c), as there was no concealment. On the revenue's appeal, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). On the revenue's appeal : HELD Though initial burden was on the department, yet ultimately, it had to be discharged by the assessee by showing the cause that the revenue could not levy penalty under section 271(1)(c). In the earlier proceedings, the assessee had accepted the tax levied and the addition made in the regular assessment, but had failed to show cause before the Deputy Commissioner when several opportunities were given to it. Even if the assessee had shown cause before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner was of the opinion that the cause…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492