2010 (3) TMI 843 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) - Held that - assessee paid a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs for grabing contract and money has actually passed on to M/s. Tirupati Traders, no written agreement between the assessee and Tirupati Traders for withdrawing from the bid, there is nothing in the record to suggest that explanation of the assessee was not bona fide, assessee might have paid money to grab the contract from GMDC, there is nothing on record to suggest that any material fact to the computation of income was in fact existing but was not disclosed by the assessee, agreement did not actually exist. In view of the above, we hold that there is no case for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c). The levy of penalty is accordingly cancelled. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Rs. 3,95,500 confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal by the assessee against a penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 3,95,500, confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The penalty was related to the disallowed expenditure claimed by the assessee regarding a payment of Rs. 10 lakhs to withdraw from a bidding contract with Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation (GMDC).

2. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure claimed by the assessee, initiating penalty proceedings. The assessee argued that the payment was genuine and supported by evidence, including bank statements and a letter from the party withdrawing from the bid. The Assessing Officer, however, levied the penalty, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the grounds of lack of business expediency and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

3. The Tribunal noted that the addition of the disallowed expenditure did not automatically imply that the claim was mala fide or false. The Tribunal emphasized that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings, requiring a fresh evaluation of explanations and evidence. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of proving the charge of filing inaccurate particulars by demonstrating material differences between the furnished and accurate particulars.

4. The Tribunal further analyzed the applicability of Explanation 1(B) to section 271(1)(c), emphasizing the need to satisfy all three cumulative conditions for invoking the penalty. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had substantiated the payment claim and demonstrated bona fide intentions, while no undisclosed material facts were found. Consequently, the Tribunal held that Explanation 1(B) could not be invoked, leading to the cancellation of the penalty under section 271(1)(c).

5. In the final decision, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, canceling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Rs. 3,95,500. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of evaluating each aspect of the case independently, distinguishing between disallowed claims and inaccurate particulars to justify the imposition of penalties under tax laws.