2013 (7) TMI 203 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Tribunal and CIT A deleted penalty while confirmed the order of addition - Held that - CIT A and the Tribunal both have properly examined the issue and have rightly deleted the penalty - Merely because certain claims were made and those claims were disallowed on the basis thereof additions were made, that would not ipso facto lead to penalty proceedings - When both the authorities concurrently held that there was neither any occasion of furnishing inaccurate particulars nor there was any concealment on the part of the assessee, they both have rightly applied the law to the facts and have deleted the amount of penalty - Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in deleting the penalty imposed on bad debts and prior expenses additions?

Analysis:
The High Court of Gujarat considered the question raised by the Revenue in a Tax Appeal regarding the deletion of a penalty imposed on bad debts and prior expenses additions. The Assessing Officer had made additions totaling Rs. 34,09,455 and Rs. 27,845, which were confirmed by both the Commissioner of Incometax [Appeals] and the Tribunal. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, resulting in a penalty of Rs. 12,63,208 being levied. The issue at hand was whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty while confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

The Commissioner of Incometax [Appeals] had deleted the penalty amount after considering various case laws and determining that there was no concealment or failure to furnish material particulars by the assessee. The Commissioner held that without these elements, the penalty could not be justified, citing decisions from various High Courts to support the reasoning. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to delete the penalty, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer had not established any inaccurate particulars or concealment on the part of the assessee.

The High Court agreed with the decisions of the Commissioner of Incometax [Appeals] and the Tribunal, stating that the penalty was rightly deleted as there was no evidence of inaccurate particulars or concealment by the assessee. Merely disallowing certain claims and making additions based on those claims did not automatically warrant penalty proceedings. Both authorities correctly applied the law to the facts of the case and concluded that no penalty should be imposed. The High Court found no legal question, let alone a substantial one, that warranted interference in the Tax Appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decisions of the Commissioner of Incometax [Appeals] and the Tribunal to delete the penalty imposed on bad debts and prior expenses additions, as there was no evidence of inaccurate particulars or concealment by the assessee. The Tax Appeal was dismissed as no legal or substantial question of law arose from the case.