2014 (2) TMI 1251 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - addition of income u/s. 2(22)(e) on deemed dividend - Held that - Facts on record show that on the date of taking these advances there was no approved plan of phase-II. The assessee could not furnish copy of plan of Phase-II put up for approval before the competent authority. Since no approved plan was available there cannot be any question of allotting commercial space to these three companies. These facts were very much in the knowledge of the assessee yet the assessee chose to show these advances under the head current liability as advances for commercial space. In our considered view this conduct of the assessee clearly establishes the concealment of facts and filing of inaccurate particulars. The assessee has concealed the true facts thereby filed inaccurate particulars. Therefore we do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). The penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is leviable on the facts of the case - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues:
Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on addition of income under section 2(22)(e) for assessment year 2003-04.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Assessment Order:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition of income under section 2(22)(e) for the assessment year 2003-04. The Assessing Officer observed advances shown by the assessee under 'current liability' from three companies in which the assessee held beneficial ownership. The AO treated these advances as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) and made an addition of &8377; 18,73,518/-.

2. Quantum Proceedings and Tribunal's Decision:
The assessee's objections were not accepted by the Ld. CIT(A) in the quantum proceedings. The Tribunal confirmed the addition but directed the AO to recomputed the deemed dividend. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO, leading to the imposition of a penalty of &8377; 5,90,158/-.

3. Penalty Proceedings and Arguments:
During the penalty proceedings, the assessee contended that the advances were not deemed dividends but advances against commercial space allotment. The assessee argued that as deemed dividend is notional income, no penalty should be levied under section 271(1)(c). However, the AO imposed the penalty, which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A).

4. Tribunal's Decision on Penalty:
The Tribunal considered the submissions and facts of the case. It noted that the assessee failed to provide an approved plan for phase-II where the commercial space was supposedly allotted. As there was no approved plan, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee concealed facts and filed inaccurate particulars, justifying the penalty under section 271(1)(c).

5. Conclusion and Direction:
The Tribunal clarified that the issue was not about the nature of income but whether the assessee concealed facts or filed inaccurate particulars. As per the Tribunal's analysis, the assessee's conduct indicated concealment of facts, justifying the penalty. The Tribunal confirmed the levy of the penalty and directed the AO to recompute it after recalculating the deemed dividend as per the directions in the quantum proceedings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, upholding the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2003-04.