9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (6) TMI 332 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disclosure of interest income and in the return filed in response to notice under section 153A - CIT(A) deleted the addition - assessee claimed the status of RBNOR in the original return filed under section 139(1) - Held that - Assessees continued to claim status of RBNOR even after amendment to provisions of section 6(6) of the Act while the legal adviser, who prepared the original returns also did not draw the attention of these assessees to the relevant provisions and consequently, interest income from FCNR deposits continued to be claimed as exempt u/s 10(15)(iv)(fa) of the Act - Since the bank also did not deduct tax at source even after amendment in law, these assessees explained that they were under the bona fide belief that their income continued to be exempt - It was only after the search that they were advised that income was no longer exempt due to amendment in law and consequently, interest income from FCNR deposits in the bank was declared in their returns filed in consequence of search - As such the decision in the case of Sunilchandra Vohra s case (2009 (6) TMI 682 - ITAT MUMBAI), it was held that bona fide ignorance of the law regarding applicability of provisions of the Act and the CA having not drawn the attention of the assessee to the relevant provisions of law, is a valid ground for not imposing penalty for concealment. Also see Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. case 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. 2. Bona fide belief and ignorance of law as a defense against penalty. 3. Applicability of Supreme Court rulings on penalty under section 271(1)(c). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Concealment of Income: The main issue in these appeals was whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalties imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The penalties were imposed on the assessees for not disclosing interest income from FCNR deposits in their original returns but disclosing it in the returns filed in response to notices under section 153A, following a search under section 132. The Revenue argued that the assessees had concealed their income, as the additional interest income was detected during the search and was not reflected in the original returns. The Revenue relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC), which stated that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was a civil wrong and did not require mens rea to be established. 2. Bona Fide Belief and Ignorance of Law as a Defense Against Penalty: The assessees contended that they were under a bona fide belief that the interest income from FCNR deposits was exempt under section 10(15)(iv)(fa) of the Act, based on their status as Resident But Not Ordinarily Resident (RBNOR). They argued that the amendment to section 6(6) of the Act, which changed their status to Resident and Ordinarily Resident (R&OR), escaped their attention and that of their tax return preparers. They also pointed out that banks did not deduct tax at source on the interest income, reinforcing their belief that the income was exempt. The CIT(A) accepted the assessees' contention, noting that the additional income was offered in the returns filed under section 153A after the search and that the assessees had paid the due taxes and interest. The CIT(A) held that the non-disclosure of interest income in the original returns was a bona fide mistake and not a deliberate attempt to conceal income. The CIT(A) referred to the Supreme Court ruling in CIT v. Sureshchandra Mittal (251 ITR 009), which held that a revised return showing higher income after a search, filed to purchase peace and avoid litigation, did not warrant penalty if the burden of proving concealment was not discharged. 3. Applicability of Supreme Court Rulings on Penalty under Section 271(1)(c): The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that making a wrong claim under a bona fide belief is not equivalent to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ITAT cited the Supreme Court ruling in Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. (322 ITR 158), which concluded that a mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ITAT also referred to other judicial precedents, including Chirag Family Trust (58 ITD 382) and Sunilchandra Vohra (127 TTJ 100), which supported the view that bona fide ignorance of law or complex provisions does not warrant penalty under section 271(1)(c). The ITAT noted that the assessees' explanation was not found to be false or untrue and that the erroneous claim was made under a mistaken bona fide belief. Conclusion: The ITAT concluded that the levy of penalty was not justified in these cases, as the assessees' non-disclosure of interest income was due to a bona fide mistake and not a deliberate attempt to conceal income. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalties imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dismissing the Revenue's appeals.
|
