2012 (10) TMI 674 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) - ITAT deleted the levy - Held that - A mere making of the claim that the credit of the amount deducted from purchase price of the sugar cane to share deposit account with the assurance to the share holders that the share will be allotted to all the cultivators, and which were not issued on the ground that the State Government did not give permission to issue the shares, by itself would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, inviting penalty under Section 271 (1) (c). As decided in C.I.T., Ahmedabad Versus Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT it was up to the authorities to accept assessee s claim in the Return or not & merely because he had claimed the expenditure not acceptable to the Revenue will not attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) - There is no finding to show that the details supplied by the assessee in its return were found to be incorrect, erroneous or false in the present case - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Justification for deleting the penalty amounting to Rs. 27,61,108.
3. Assessment of income and accuracy of particulars provided by the assessee.

Deletion of Penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act:
The appeal was filed against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to the assessment year 2002-03. The substantial questions of law revolved around the correctness of deleting the penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 27,61,108. The Tribunal, in its decision, focused on whether the penalty was leviable based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 90,23,233, which was confirmed by the Tribunal in a quantum appeal. The Tribunal analyzed various factors and found that the assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars of income, leading to the deletion of the penalty by the CIT (A).

Justification for Deleting the Penalty Amounting to Rs. 27,61,108:
The Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty was based on the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the collection of funds from the purchase price of sugarcane for the issuance of shares. The Tribunal noted that the shares could not be issued due to the lack of permission from the State Government. It emphasized that the assessee had disclosed all relevant particulars of income in its books and returns, even though there might have been errors in the computation of total income. The Tribunal deemed the explanation provided by the assessee as bonafide and held that it was not a fit case for levying a penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act.

Assessment of Income and Accuracy of Particulars Provided by the Assessee:
The Tribunal's decision was further supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad Vs. Reliance Petro-products Private Ltd, which clarified the meaning of inaccurate particulars. The Court emphasized that a mere claim not sustainable in law would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding income. In this case, there was no finding that the details provided by the assessee were incorrect, erroneous, or false. The Court concluded that the claim made by the assessee, even if not admissible for computing income, did not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars warranting a penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Therefore, the Income Tax Appeal was dismissed based on the Tribunal's decision and the legal principles established by the Supreme Court.

---