Section 271(1)(c), read with section 271AAA, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty

IT: Section 271AAA and section 271(1)(c) have different concomitant scopes and are mandated to operate exclusively

■■■

[2015] 55 taxmann.com 284 (Mumbai - Trib.)

IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH 'C'

Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-13, Mumbai

v.

Prakash Steelage Ltd.*

SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

AND AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

IT APPEAL NO. 5221 (MUM.) OF 2012

[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10]

JANUARY  28, 2015

Section 271(1)(c), read with section 271AAA, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income (Section 271AAA v. section 271(1)(c)) - Assessment year 2009-10 - Whether section 271AAA and section 271(1)(c) have different concomitant scopes and are mandated to operate exclusively - Held, yes - There was a search and seizure action under section 132 at premises of assessee - Several incriminating materials were found leading to disclosure of undisclosed income vide statement under section 132(4) - Addition was made by Assessing Officer - Thereafter, penalty under section 271AAA had been levied by Assessing Officer as assessee could not specify manner in which such income had been derived - Commissioner (Appeals) deleted penalty on basis of a finding that there was substantial compliance, not warranting any further denial of benefit of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) - Commissioner (Appeals) having examined levy on basis and anvil of a different provision, matter was to be restored back to him for consideration afresh - Held, yes [Paras 4.3 and 4.4] [In favour of revenue/Matter remanded]

Section 10(23AAA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 16C(5) of the Income-tax Rules

IT : Where commissioner had wrongly interpreted rule 16C and held that employer could not made any payment for corpus of employees welfare fund, order of Commissioner to reject registration under section 10(23AAA) was to be set aside

■■■

[2015] 55 taxmann.com 184 (Gujarat)

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

KPT Employees Welfare Trust

v.

Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot-I*

K.S. JHAVERI AND K.J. THAKER, JJ.

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12659 OF 2014

DECEMBER  22, 2014

Section 10(23AAA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 16C(5) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 - Employees' welfare fund, exemption to (Employer's contribution) - Assessee-trust was constituted for benefit of employees of a port trust - It filed application for registration under section 10(23AAA) - Commissioner invoked rule 16C of rules and rejected said application holding that employer could not made any payment for corpus and, therefore, one of conditions laid down in section 10(23AAA) was not fulfilled - Whether since as per CBDT guideline, employer contribution in corpus was acceptable, impugned order passed by Commissioner was to be quashed and set aside - Held, yes [Para 13] [In favour of assessee]

Circulars and Notifications : Notification Nos. 9830 SO 672(E), dated 27-7-1995 and 33/11, dated 3-6-2011