2014 (4) TMI 886 - AT - Income Tax

Upholding of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act - Time barred penalty proceedings Matter remanded back from High Court - Held that - The decision in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Ltd. 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT followed - The disallowance of expenses was made out of P&L A/c which was filed by the assessee along with its return of income - the expenses were disallowed by the AO and were allowed by CIT(A) which were further disallowed by the ITAT which itself shows that there was two possible views on the additions and various decisions as relied upon by the Ld AR has held under these circumstances the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed - mere non acceptance of a claim for expenditure cannot tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against penalty order, disallowance of depreciation, business expenditure, interest on mortgage loans, difference of opinion, concealment of particulars, penalty u/s 271(1)(c), case laws, imposition of penalty.

The judgment pertains to an appeal against a penalty order upheld by the ld CIT(A), remanded back by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court for considering the case on merits. The penalty was imposed due to additions made by the Assessing Officer on depreciation, business expenditure, and interest on mortgage loans. The assessee argued that the additions were debatable due to a difference of opinion among the authorities, indicating no concealment of particulars but merely a variance in interpretation. The Ld AR cited various case laws to support the argument that disallowance of a claim does not amount to inaccurate particulars disclosure. The Ld DR, however, relied on the authorities below.

Upon hearing both parties and examining the record, the Tribunal noted that the expenses were disallowed from the P&L account filed by the assessee, with differing decisions by the authorities on the same. It was observed that there were two possible views on the additions, and non-acceptance of an expenditure claim does not constitute inaccurate particulars disclosure. Citing the Supreme Court's rulings in various cases, the Tribunal emphasized that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed merely for making unsustainable claims or due to disallowance of claims in assessment. The Tribunal concluded that the case of the assessee was supported by judicial pronouncements, thereby allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed solely based on disallowance of claims or differences in opinion among authorities, as supported by relevant case laws and judicial precedents.