2010 (12) TMI 666 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty - Amount involved pertaining to subscription for renewal of Microsoft licences - this policy has been followed by the assessee in earlier period also where it was not disturbed - in the case of Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa in (1969 -TMI - 39958 - SUPREME Court) wherein it was held that an order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceedings, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation Regarding interest on loan - ince the issue has been remitted to the files of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), in our considered opinion, adjudication of penalty at our level is not possible without adjudication of the same on merits by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) pursuant to the remand by the ITAT - appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2004-05. The primary issue raised was the deletion of a penalty of Rs.20,10,900/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The case involved various additions made during the assessment, leading to penalties being levied. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) granted substantial relief, which was partly confirmed and partly remanded by the ITAT. The additions included software expenses, losses due to foreign exchange fluctuation, interest on loans to directors, and unsecured loans obtained.

Regarding the software expenses, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the penalty, emphasizing that there was no conscious effort to conceal income. The ITAT upheld this decision, stating that the disallowance of expenses for subsequent years did not warrant a penalty under section 271(1)(c) as the assessee had provided all necessary particulars.

In the case of losses on foreign exchange fluctuation and unsecured loans obtained, the penalties were deleted by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and upheld by the ITAT. The judgment referred to the decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd. to support the interpretation of 'concealment' and 'inaccurate' particulars under section 271(1)(c).

Regarding interest on loans to directors, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) granted partial relief, and the issue was remanded for fresh adjudication. The ITAT decided to remit the penalty issue back to the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a detailed examination after the remand.

The judgment highlighted the importance of judicial discretion in imposing penalties under statutory obligations, citing the Hindustan Steel case. Ultimately, the appeal by the Revenue was partly allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of penalty issues based on merits and legal provisions.

In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the penalty deletions under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, emphasizing the importance of providing accurate particulars and the discretionary nature of imposing penalties based on statutory obligations and legal interpretations.