2012 (7) TMI 596 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) - CIT(A) deleted the penalty - Held that - In respect of commission paid to party and ERP Software expenses incurred on ERP software, the assessee has filed along with the return of income audit report and other relevant statements in support of such claims and also during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee further submitted all the information and explanations as required by the A.O. - The explanation offered by the assessee in support of such claims were not found false by the A.O. Therefore, merely because assessee s claim has been disallowed, it cannot be said that the assessee is also guilty of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income - no material or evidence for arriving at a reasonable conclusion that amount of addition under consideration represent the income of the assessee. Penalty levied on salary & marketing expenses - Held that - As on similar facts penalty imposed by the A.O. was deleted by ld. CIT(A) as upheld by the tribunal for the assessment year 1999-2000 thus respectfully following the same, the order passed by ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty is hereby confirmed - decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee.
3. Disallowance of commission payments.
4. Disallowance of salary payments.
5. Disallowance of marketing expenses under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act.
6. Disallowance of ERP software expenses.
7. Excess claims of deductions under Sections 80HHC and 80IA.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Penalty Levied under Section 271(1)(c):
The Revenue challenged the deletion of penalties totaling various amounts levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for alleged concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalties were related to disallowances and additions confirmed by the CIT(A) for commission payments, salary payments, marketing expenses, and ERP software expenses.

2. Alleged Furnishing of Inaccurate Particulars of Income:
The Revenue argued that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income, thereby attracting Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c). The Revenue cited the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors, emphasizing strict liability for concealment or inaccurate particulars.

3. Disallowance of Commission Payments:
The assessee contended that the commission payments to M/s Nipun Finvest Pvt. Ltd. and Mercury Enterprises were genuine and supported by documentation, including PAN numbers and sales details. The CIT(A) found that the assessee provided complete details and explanations, which were not proven false by the Assessing Officer (A.O.). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that disallowance alone does not justify penalty imposition without evidence of concealment or inaccuracy.

4. Disallowance of Salary Payments:
The assessee argued that salary payments to Gharda Chemicals Ltd. for services rendered by Dr. Bomi Patel and U. A. Maroo were legitimate business expenses. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal previously deleted similar penalties for the assessment year 1999-2000. The Tribunal, following its earlier decision, confirmed the deletion of the penalty for the current year.

5. Disallowance of Marketing Expenses under Section 40A(2)(b):
The assessee justified marketing expenses paid to Gharda Chemicals Ltd. as reasonable and necessary for business purposes. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal had previously deleted similar penalties for the assessment year 1999-2000. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty for the current year, citing consistency with earlier judgments.

6. Disallowance of ERP Software Expenses:
The assessee claimed ERP software expenses as business expenditures for software implementation and training provided by Gharda Chemicals Ltd. The CIT(A) found the expenses genuine and supported by documentation. The Tribunal agreed that the mere disallowance of expenses does not warrant penalty imposition without evidence of concealment or inaccuracy.

7. Excess Claims of Deductions under Sections 80HHC and 80IA:
The Revenue's appeals included penalties related to excess claims of deductions under Sections 80HHC and 80IA. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided detailed explanations and documentation for the claims. The disallowance of deductions alone was insufficient to impose penalties without evidence of concealment or inaccuracy.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and allowed the assessee's appeal, confirming the deletion of penalties by the CIT(A). The Tribunal emphasized that disallowances or additions alone do not justify penalty imposition without evidence of concealment or inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal's decision was consistent with earlier judgments and supported by detailed documentation and explanations provided by the assessee. The order was pronounced in open court on 29.06.2012.

← Previous Next →