9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 1220 - HC - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act Claim of expenditure made in P & L A/c Held that - Reliance has been placed upon the judgment in the case of CITv. Reliance Petro Products P. Ltd. 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT - So long as the assessee had not concealed any material or the factual information given by him has not been found to be incorrect, there would be no imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. Even if the claim made by the assessee is unsustainable in law, so long as the assessee substantiated the explanation offered by him or the same is found to be bona fide, Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) would not stand attracted. However, when the assessee does not substantiate the explanation or the same is found to be lacking in bona fide, Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) would stand attracted In the present case, there was no lacking in bona fides in the claim of the assessee originally made Decided against the Revenue.
Issues:
Admission of tax case for assessment year 2007-08 - Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Tribunal's decision based on CIT v. Reliance Petro Products P. Ltd. - Assessing Officer's penalty proceedings - Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) decision - Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision - Claimed deductions for trust fund, diminution in value of investments, and sundry balances written off - Revised memo of computation - Revised return of income - Explanation for claim - Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Zoom Communication P. Ltd. The High Court of Madras was presented with the issue of admitting a tax case for the assessment year 2007-08 concerning the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the apex court's ruling in CIT v. Reliance Petro Products P. Ltd., emphasizing that a mere disagreement on claimed expenditures does not automatically warrant a penalty. The case involved an assessee who claimed deductions for contributions to a trust fund, diminution in value of investments, and written off sundry balances. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings due to the failure to file a revised return offering the disputed amount as income. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) overturned the penalty, highlighting the assessee's explanation and voluntary declaration of the disputed amount to avoid prolonged disputes. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal further upheld the decision, emphasizing that the claim, even if inadmissible, did not constitute concealment. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the lack of concealment or inaccurate particulars by the assessee, especially regarding the absence of a revised return but a revised statement. The Tribunal noted that the claim was based on a genuine interpretation of the law, making it challenging to establish income concealment. The Revenue's appeal was based on a decision from the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Zoom Communication P. Ltd., which reiterated the necessity of proving lack of bona fides for imposing penalties under section 271(1)(c). However, the High Court of Madras found no grounds to accept the Revenue's plea, as the Tribunal had determined the absence of lacking bona fides in the assessee's claim, leading to the dismissal of the tax case appeal without costs. In summary, the judgment delves into the intricacies of penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the importance of bona fides and accurate disclosure of information by the assessee. The decision underscores that a mere disagreement on claimed deductions does not automatically lead to penalties if the explanation is genuine and substantiated. The case serves as a reminder of the nuanced considerations involved in penalty assessments and the significance of factual findings in determining the applicability of penalties for tax-related matters.
|
