2014 (9) TMI 1104 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) - ITAT deleted the penalty - Held that - We find from the orders of the assessing officer or the CIT that there is no allegation against the assessee for concealment of particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal was justified in passing the order under challenge. Therefore, the application and appeal are dismissed.- Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for disallowances of interest amount.
2. Levying penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
3. Penalty on disallowance of claim of loss on state Government lotteries.
4. Penalty for failure to produce relevant records.
5. Upholding order without furnishing documents in penalty proceedings.
6. Legitimacy of the impugned order.

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for disallowances of interest amount. The appellant challenged the deletion of penalty by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, arguing that the assessee had interest-free funds available. However, the High Court found no allegation of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income against the assessee. Consequently, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal.

2. The second issue involves the levy of penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal had held that penalty cannot be levied if the assessee has not discharged the onus in this regard. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that there were no allegations of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars against the assessee.

3. Moving on to the third issue, the penalty on the disallowance of a claim of loss on state Government lotteries was contested. The Tribunal had deleted the penalty, stating that treating the loss as concealment of income was unjustified. The High Court upheld this decision, noting that there was no justification for considering the business loss as concealment of income.

4. The fourth issue concerns the penalty for the failure to produce relevant records. The Tribunal had deleted the penalty on this issue, as the assessee had not filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and failed to produce relevant records. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal.

5. The fifth issue questions the upholding of an order without furnishing documents in penalty proceedings. The Tribunal had upheld the order without considering the failure of the assessee to furnish documents substantiating its claim. The High Court found that the Tribunal's decision was justified based on the absence of allegations of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars against the assessee.

6. Lastly, the legitimacy of the impugned order was challenged on the grounds of being arbitrary and illegal. The High Court, after considering the arguments and lack of allegations against the assessee, dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision as justified and in accordance with the law.