2013 (5) TMI 881 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) - Held that - The Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT) has held that a mere making of the claim which is not sustainable in the law, by itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case, admittedly, assessee made a claim but the same was rejected and disallowed not for the reason that the claim was not genuine or was fabricated but in view of provisions of law that assessee did not deduct TDS thereon.We are of the considered that view that the ratio of judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the case before us and, therefore, levy of penalty is not justified.

Summary

Issues:
Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for non-deduction of TDS on expenses claimed by the assessee.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Issue of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):
The appellant filed an appeal against the order confirming the penalty of Rs. 5,44,540 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2007-08. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed expenses amounting to Rs. 16,17,766 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of tax. The AO initiated penalty proceedings, rejecting the contention that the expenses were not subject to TDS. The AO held that the appellant concealed income particulars, leading to the penalty imposition. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the expenses were covered by TDS provisions, and the appellant deliberately claimed deductions without deducting TDS. The appellant argued that there was no concealment of income and relied on previous tribunal decisions and Supreme Court judgments to support their case.

2. Tribunal Decision and Legal Interpretation:
The Tribunal observed that the appellant's expenses were genuine, and the department did not dispute their authenticity. The penalty was imposed solely due to the disallowance of expenses under section 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct TDS. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Reliance Petroproducts Ltd, the Tribunal emphasized that a claim disallowed due to legal provisions does not constitute furnishing inaccurate income particulars. The Tribunal referenced a similar case where the penalty was canceled for non-deduction of TDS on payments. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposition was unjustified and deleted the penalty, aligning with legal precedents and the factual circumstances of the case.

3. Final Tribunal Decision:
The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and orders of the lower authorities, ruled in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal held that the penalty levy was not in accordance with the law and deleted the penalty, allowing the appellant's appeal. The decision was pronounced in an open court on 22nd May 2013. The Tribunal's verdict highlighted the importance of distinguishing between genuine claims disallowed due to legal provisions and deliberate income concealment, ensuring a fair application of penalty provisions under the Income Tax Act.