2012 (7) TMI 489 - AT - Income Tax

Deletion of the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c)- disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) , 40A (2) (b) & unexplained expenditure u/s 69C - Held that - Since the various disallowance made are a debatable issue there is nothing on record to suggest that the assessee had concealed any particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income - merely making a wrong claim does not call for levy of penalty - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Levy of penalty for disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act
2. Levy of penalty for disallowance made u/s 40A (2) (b) of the Act
3. Levy of penalty on addition made for unexplained expenditure of Rs.10,000/- u/s 69C of the Act

Issue 1: Levy of penalty for disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act:
The appellant, a Private Limited Company in the hotel and resort business, faced penalty proceedings for not deducting TDS on catering charges paid to a vendor. The AO disallowed the amount and imposed a penalty. However, the CIT(A) deleted the penalty citing that the appellant's explanation was not proven false, and there was no deliberate concealment of income. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the issue was debatable, leading to the penalty cancellation.

Issue 2: Levy of penalty for disallowance made u/s 40A (2) (b) of the Act:
Regarding interest payments on unsecured loans, the AO disallowed a portion, leading to penalty proceedings. The CIT(A) found no concealment or inaccurate particulars, attributing the disagreement to a mere difference in opinion. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the diverse interest rates paid were debatable, and there was no evidence of deliberate concealment. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.

Issue 3: Levy of penalty on addition made for unexplained expenditure of Rs.10,000/- u/s 69C of the Act:
An unexplained expenditure of Rs.10,000 was added to the appellant's income, resulting in penalty imposition. However, since the CIT(A) had previously deleted this addition in a quantum appeal, the penalty was deemed unjustified. The Tribunal concurred, noting that no deliberate concealment was evident, ultimately confirming the deletion of the penalty.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decisions to delete penalties in all three instances. The judgments highlighted the absence of deliberate concealment or inaccurate particulars, emphasizing the debatable nature of the issues involved. The rulings underscored the need for separate considerations in penalty proceedings distinct from assessment proceedings, ultimately upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions and dismissing the revenue's appeal.