2012 (5) TMI 614 - AT - Income Tax

Levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) - Held that - It is not in dispute that the fact of the loan taken by the assessee from the company came within the knowledge of AO from the balance sheet filed by the assessee which means that the assessee has disclosed the fact of borrowing in her balance sheet. We agree with the Counsel that assessee had no malafide intention to conceal the fact. So long as assessee has not concealed any material fact or any factual information given by her has not been found to be incorrect she should not be liable to imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) on deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested the correctness of the CIT(A)'s Order for the assessment year 2006-07, specifically challenging the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) related to deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.

2. During assessment proceedings, it was discovered that the appellant had taken a loan from a company of which she was a director with substantial interest. The loan amount was treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, leading to penalty proceedings being initiated.

3. The appellant argued that she was unaware of the relevant provisions and acted in good faith. The appellant's explanation was rejected by the Assessing Officer, who imposed a penalty. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty citing a Supreme Court decision.

4. The appellant, in appeal, reiterated lack of awareness of the law and contended that the loan should not be treated as income under normal provisions. The appellant also cited a similar case where the Tribunal canceled the penalty.

5. The Tribunal noted that the loan was disclosed in the appellant's balance sheet, indicating no intention to conceal facts. As long as there was no deliberate concealment or incorrect information, the penalty should not apply under section 271(1)(c).

6. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s reliance on the Supreme Court decision, deeming it misplaced. Considering all facts, the Tribunal ruled that the penalty was unwarranted in this case and directed the cancellation of the imposed penalty.

7. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, cancelling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision in this case regarding the penalty under the Income Tax Act.