2013 (11) TMI 145 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Justification of expenses incurred for earning no income Held that - The assessee has not shown any nexus between the research carried on by the doctors and the business of the assessee The assessee has not furnished any details of expenditure and the outline of research and development carried out in the course of carrying on of its business A general claim that the company has carried on research and development is not sufficient to allow the expenditure The assessee has not carried out any business activity during the year under consideration and on the contrary claiming huge expenditure showing loss in its books of accounts - levy of penalty confirmed - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2006-07.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c). The case involved M/s. Harvey Heart Hospitals Ltd., where a search was conducted under section 132. The company, incorporated in 1996, had not carried out any business activity in the relevant year as it had sold all its fixed assets to another company. The Assessing Officer disallowed an expenditure claim of &8377; 32,99,650 as the company failed to provide evidence for incurring such expenses. The addition was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal, leading to penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer.

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the penalty, stating that the absence of evidence did not necessarily indicate a motive for furnishing false particulars. However, the Revenue appealed, arguing that the assessee failed to prove the expenses and furnished inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal, after reviewing the facts, found that the assessee did not produce evidence to support the expenditure claim and that the expenses were not related to the business activities of the company. The Tribunal concluded that the claim of expenditure was false, leading to concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal highlighted that the company's business had ceased, and the claim of expenditure without supporting evidence was not justified. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a nexus between research activities and business operations, which was lacking in this case. Despite considering the professional achievements of the company's director, the Tribunal found the lack of specific details regarding the research conducted by the company. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and restored the penalty, allowing the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the penalty under section 271(1)(c) due to the lack of evidence supporting the expenditure claim, the absence of business activities, and the failure to establish a connection between research expenses and the company's operations. The judgment emphasized the importance of substantiating claims with evidence and maintaining a clear nexus between expenses and business activities to avoid penalties for concealment of income.