2016 (1) TMI 1244 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of business expenses - Held that - AO has made an adhoc disallowance of 2, 00, 000/- which has subsequently been reduced to 1, 00, 000/- by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT. The said disallowance is out of the total expenses of 18, 57, 263/- which basically means 95% of the expenses have been held to have incurred for the purpose of business and only 5% have been held for non-business purposes. The ld. AO has not given any finding regarding specific expenditure/ transactions which has resulted in the said disallowance. He has merely done a broad comparison of expenses vis-a-vis. Last year and held that since the expenditure during the year is on a higher side. A lump sum amount of 2, 00, 000/-is disallowed. In our view unless and until the AO records a finding of fact that certain identifiable expenditure or the transactions are bogus or for non-business expenses the said disallowance on an adhoc basis in the quantum proceedings cannot be the basis for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 based on adhoc disallowance of expenses.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) regarding the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. The relevant issue revolved around the disallowance of expenses claimed by the assessee under the head "other expenses" during the assessment year. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000 out of the total expenses claimed by the assessee, leading to the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 33,600. The Coordinate Bench of ITAT had confirmed the disallowance at Rs. 1,00,000. The main contention was whether such adhoc disallowance could be a valid basis for imposing a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

During the appeal process, the assessee argued that the AO had not provided specific findings regarding the disallowed expenses and had made the disallowance on a broad comparison basis without identifying any specific non-business transactions. The assessee cited various legal precedents supporting the non-levy of penalty in cases of adhoc or estimated disallowances. The Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the lower authorities' orders.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal noted that the AO's disallowance was adhoc and lacked specific findings on non-business expenses. The Tribunal emphasized that unless the AO establishes identifiable non-business transactions or bogus expenditures, adhoc disallowances in the quantum proceedings cannot serve as a valid basis for imposing a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the ground taken by the assessee and deleted the penalty imposed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the necessity for specific findings on non-business expenses to justify a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. The judgment highlighted the importance of establishing identifiable non-business transactions before penalizing an assessee based on adhoc disallowances during the assessment proceedings.