9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (1) TMI 837 - AT - Income TaxPenalty under section 271(1)(c) - long-term capital gain - Assessing Officer held that the payment to workers was not expenditure in connection with transfer - Held that - levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) signifies a deliberate omission on the part of the assessee. Such deliberate act must be either for the purpose of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, Assessing Officer is required to arrive at a finding that the explanation offered by the assessee, in the event he offers one, was false. He must be found to have failed to prove that such explanation was not only not bona fide but all the facts relating to the same which are material to the income were not disclosed by him. Thus apart from his explanation not being bona fide, it should be found as a fact that he has not disclosed all the facts which were material for the computation of his income, facts of the case do not warrant levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, Departmental appeal is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Assessment of long-term capital gain on surrender of tenancy rights. 2. Disallowance of expenditure incurred on payment to workers. 3. Initiation and levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Assessment of Long-Term Capital Gain on Surrender of Tenancy Rights: The appellant, a registered firm, disclosed long-term capital gain on surrender of tenancy rights in their return of income for the assessment year 2002-03. The consideration for the transfer of the tenanted premises was Rs. 30 crores, with additional income from the sale of scrap amounting to Rs. 10.8 lakhs. The total consideration was Rs. 30,10,80,000. The appellant claimed deductions for various expenditures, including payments to tenants and workers, resulting in a net long-term capital gain of Rs. 19,55,36,383. The Assessing Officer, however, assessed the long-term capital gain at Rs. 24,56,34,724 by disallowing the expenditure incurred on payment to workers amounting to Rs. 5,01,39,879, stating that it was not an expenditure in connection with the transfer. 2. Disallowance of Expenditure Incurred on Payment to Workers: The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction for payment to workers, arguing that it was not an expenditure in connection with the transfer. This decision was based on the history of multiple assessments and appeals related to the same subject matter. Previous assessments for the years 1995-96, 1997-98, and 1998-99 had seen varying decisions on the matter, with some allowing the deduction and others disallowing it. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the disallowance, relying on the decision in the case of CIT v. Radio Talkies [1999] 238 ITR 872 (Bom). 3. Initiation and Levy of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(c): The Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and levied a penalty of Rs. 1,02,28,536. The appellant argued that the claim for deduction was made bona fide and supported by judicial pronouncements, including previous orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income-tax. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance was based on a difference of opinion and that the appellant had disclosed all relevant facts. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found no evidence of the claim being mala fide or unsubstantiated and thus cancelled the penalty. Conclusion: The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal found that the appellant had disclosed full facts and that the disallowance of the deduction was due to a difference of opinion rather than any deliberate omission or inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal confirmed that the facts of the case did not warrant the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) and dismissed the Departmental appeal, thereby upholding the cancellation of the penalty. Final Judgment: The Departmental appeal was dismissed, and the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was cancelled. The order was pronounced on January 11, 2010.
|
