High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Har Nath Ram Nath v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Kanpur And Another - INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 129 of 2000  RD-AH 9521 (18 May 2007)
Court No. 37
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 129 OF 2000
M/s. Har Nath Ram Nath
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur & another
Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Singh, J.
We have heard learned counsel for both sides.
For imposing penalty under Section 273(2) (a), it is essential that the assessing officer is satisfied that the low estimate of advance tax was furnished although the assessee knew or had reason to believe the said estimate to be untrue.
Although there is an inference drawn repeatedly in the impugned orders that the assessee could have foreseen certain things namely excess income and disallowance of deduction, but this conclusion of the foreseeability by assessee is not based upon any cogent facts or material. Mere rhetoric or repetition of inferences cannot be a good substitute for facts and evidence and circumstances supporting the inferences.
The Punjab and Harayana High Court in C.I.T., Vs. Chaudhari Cotton (2005) 278 ITR 387 has also held that unless cogent evidence is adduced to prove that the assessee deliberately filed a false estimate, penalty cannot be imposed.
For the reasons given above, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned orders to the extent of imposing penalty.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.