2010 (3) TMI 774 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty - The explanation offered regarding total electricity expenses of Rs. 19.86 lakhs was accepted except that of Rs. 4 89 lakhs because in whose name this amount was explained i.e. Shri P.S. Mani had denied having paid this amount but had accepted that someone in the office of M/s. Shivaji Films had got his signatures. The assessee was actually never confronted with that statement in quantum proceedings but was told about only during penalty proceedings. The totality of the facts and the circumstances of this case speaks volumes in favour of the assessee. The assessee is not the father of the bride. The Assessing Officer has simply assumed and presumed facts. The assessee had offered explanation but to avoid harassment and embarrassment and further litigation did not contest the quantum addition. In our opinion this is not a fit case for the levy of penalty. Accordingly we order to delete/cancel the impugned penalty and allow the appeal of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment year 1996-97 penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Analysis:
The appellant, a film producer, filed an income tax return for assessment year 1996-97, which was later reassessed with significant additions for unexplained expenditure related to a marriage and power supply. The first appeal resulted in the deletion of one addition but upholding the other, leading to a penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant contested this penalty in a second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that while the addition was confirmed, the parameters for penalty proceedings are distinct. The Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act establishes a presumption of concealment, which the appellant must rebut. It was emphasized that the levy of penalty is not automatic, and the Assessing Officer must follow due process, considering explanations tendered by the assessee before imposing a penalty.

In this case, the Tribunal noted that the appellant's explanation regarding the unexplained expenditure on power supply was accepted, except for a portion where a third party's statement was considered. The Tribunal found that the conditions for invoking Explanation 1 were not met, as the appellant had offered explanations and the circumstances favored the appellant. It was highlighted that the appellant did not contest the addition to avoid further litigation, not because the claim was false. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that this was not a suitable case for penalty imposition and ordered the cancellation of the penalty, allowing the appeal of the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, overturning the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for assessment year 1996-97.