2013 (6) TMI 101 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - held that - this is not a case which would attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The question whether gains arising out of exercise of cashless options was long term capital gains or short term capital gains could have been a contentious issue at the material time. Further the facts of this case do not indicate that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed income. This court has also considered the issue of penalty in a similar situation in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jaswinder Singh Ahuja 2013 (2) TMI 581 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on the treatment of gains arising from the exercise of stock options as long term capital gains.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the revenue challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal related to the assessment year 2008-09. The controversy centered around the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee, a senior executive, did not include capital gains resulting from exercising stock options and selling vested shares in the income declared for the year. The Assessing Officer considered these gains as short term capital gains, leading to an addition of Rs. 86,98,461 to the assessee's income.

The assessee, in response, decided not to contest the assessment order to avoid litigation, surrendering the right to challenge it. However, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings, imposing a penalty of Rs. 29,56,610 based on incremental tax payable on the addition made. The assessee contended that the gains were long term capital gains, exempt under Section 54F of the Act, as advised by tax professionals.

Upon appeal, the CIT (Appeals) set aside the penalty, noting that making a wrong claim did not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing income. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, citing a Supreme Court ruling that a wrong claim alone does not warrant a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The High Court concurred with these findings, emphasizing that the case did not involve inaccurate particulars or concealed income.

The court also referenced a similar case to support its decision, highlighting that no substantial question of law was raised in the appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, with no order as to costs.