2012 (5) TMI 344 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271 - all the additions in respect of commission expenses of Rs.10,46,163/-, clearing and forwarding expenses of Rs.2,01,037/- and fees and legal expenses of Rs.1,10,200/- (totalling to Rs.13,57,400/-) have been disallowed holding that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 40(a) (ia) of the IT Act and that the AO has levied penalty on the said amount - held that - the learned CIT(A) on proper appreciation of the facts of the case, considering the submissions of the assessee and the citations referred to by the assessee before him, has rightly deleted the penalty

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act amounting to Rs.13,57,400. The assessee contested that the penalty was unjustified as the AO did not doubt the payments made to the parties, arguing that non-deduction of tax at source did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee explained that certain expenses were linked to performance quotas and TDS provisions were not attracted, citing relevant CBDT Circulars.

Regarding commission expenses, the assessee clarified that payments were made for purchases and linked to performance quotas, hence TDS deduction was not necessary. For clearing and forwarding expenses, it was argued that TDS provisions did not apply due to the nature of the payment to a non-resident shipping company. The assessee also justified legal expenses, citing the first-time application of section 40(a)(ia) for the relevant year and emphasized that the genuineness of expenses was not in question.

The CIT(A) referred to the Supreme Court's decision on concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars and concluded that the penalty was not mandatory in this case. Considering the technical nature of the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia), the penalty was deleted. The Revenue challenged this decision, but the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s findings. The ITAT noted that the assessee's actions were bonafide, and there was no deliberate attempt to conceal income. Citing relevant case laws, the ITAT concluded that penalty imposition was not justified as no inaccurate particulars were furnished.

The ITAT found merit in the submissions of the assessee, noting that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the penalty after considering all relevant facts and legal precedents. The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the deletion of the penalty. The decision was based on the absence of material to counter the CIT(A)'s findings. Ultimately, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, upholding the deletion of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.