2013 (1) TMI 878 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - disallowance of bad debts - Held that - in absence of any material to indicate any dishonest attempt on the part of the assessee to conceal the income no penalty can be imposed - the assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its Return - neither there is any concealment of income nor is there any material to indicate filing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee - Decided in favor of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on cancellation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the ITAT order proposing a substantial question of law regarding the cancellation of a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The issue revolved around the deletion of penalty imposed due to the disallowance of bad debts. The assessee had disclosed all relevant facts to the Assessing Officer, who found the claim unsustainable and levied a penalty. However, the CIT(A) later deleted the penalty, and the Tribunal agreed, stating it was a case of a difference in opinion on deductions without any indication of dishonesty or concealment by the assessee.

The High Court found no grounds to entertain the Tax Appeal as there was no concealment or inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. Referring to the decision in CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., the court emphasized that for a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) to apply, there must be concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The court clarified that making an incorrect claim for expenditure does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The court highlighted that the details provided in the return were not found to be inaccurate or false, thus not warranting a penalty.

The court further elaborated that merely making a claim that is not accepted by the Assessing Officer does not automatically attract a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Rejecting the Revenue's contention, the court emphasized that the legislative intent was not to penalize every unaccepted claim in a return. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that the assessee had provided accurate details in the return, and the claim's non-acceptance did not justify a penalty under the Act.