2010 (1) TMI 870 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty - expenses incurred by the assessee is genuine whether it is for speculative business or non-speculative business - assessee has filed all particulars of income which were necessary for determining total income - assessee was of the view that the expenses related to own share trading/speculation business activities were negligible, therefore, apportionment of expenses toward own share trading/ speculation business was not necessary - Whereas the Assessing Officer was of the view that apportion of expenses in between speculation business and other business were required and he do so on the basis of particulars filed by the assessee Held that - Merely the Assessing Officer and assessee were having different views that does not amount to a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) are not applicable, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of penalty levied by the Assessing Officer.
2. Alleged concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
3. Apportionment of expenses between speculation business and other business income.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Penalty Levied by the Assessing Officer:
The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order, which deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. The penalty was initially imposed because the Assessing Officer believed the expenses claimed by the assessee were not adequately bifurcated between speculative and non-speculative business activities. The CIT(A) restricted the apportionment of expenses towards speculation business to Rs. 35,09,342 from the original Rs. 57,90,471 determined by the Assessing Officer. The ITAT confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, leading to the present appeal by the revenue.

2. Alleged Concealment of Income or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars of Income:
The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee argued that the expenses related to share trading were negligible and thus did not require bifurcation. The Assessing Officer, however, apportioned Rs. 57,90,471 towards speculative business expenses, including Rs. 5,00,000 for legal and professional expenses, which were deemed not connected to the business. The CIT(A) excluded Rs. 34,23,891 from the penalty calculation but upheld the penalty for the Rs. 5,00,000 legal and professional expenses, citing deliberate concealment of particulars.

3. Apportionment of Expenses Between Speculation Business and Other Business Income:
The primary contention was whether the expenses should be apportioned between speculative and non-speculative business activities. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) differed on the amount to be apportioned. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the apportionment to Rs. 35,09,342. The learned DR argued that the assessee failed to allocate any expenses towards speculative business, which was necessary under section 73 of the Income-tax Act. The learned AR contended that the expenses were genuine and the issue was merely about the allocation of expenses, not concealment of income.

Conclusion:
The ITAT concluded that the assessee had filed all necessary particulars for determining total income and that the difference in views between the Assessing Officer and the assessee regarding the apportionment of expenses did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude Rs. 34,23,891 from the penalty calculation and confirmed that the penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) were not applicable in this case. Consequently, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed.

← Previous Next →