2014 (7) TMI 340 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act No satisfactory explanation about foreign loss - Wrong claim of expenses incurred on vessels in Tonnage scheme Held that - Assessee had claimed forex loss on Tonnage Vessel under the Non-Tonnage Income - Provisions of the Act are very clear about the loss that could be claimed or not claimed under the Tonnage income/non Tonnage income - it was not voluntary compliance of the provisions of the Act - after receiving notices u/s 142/143 if the assessee admits some income it cannot be taken as voluntary disclosure - penalty under the Act is of not of criminal nature - AO and FAA have given a clear finding that the assessee not offered any satisfactory explanation about the forex loss claim. The decision in MAK Data P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-II 2013 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT followed - It is the statutory duty of the assessee to record all its transactions in the books of account, to explain the source of payments made by it and to declare its true income in the return of income filed by it from year to year - The AO had recorded a categorical finding that he was satisfied that the assessee had concealed the true particulars of income and was liable for penalty proceedings u/s 271 of the Act Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Confirmation of Penalty
The only ground of appeal in this case pertains to the confirmation of a penalty of Rs. 3.09 lakhs imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO found that the assessee had wrongly claimed expenditure incurred on vessels under the Tonnage Scheme as part of Non-Tonnage Income. This led to the initiation of penalty proceedings for filing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. The AO held that the assessee had concealed income by debiting Rs. 9.37 lakhs as foreign exchange loss from Non-Tonnage Income, even though it was related to Tonnage Vessels. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) confirmed the penalty, stating that the assessee had filed inaccurate particulars to evade taxes and did not provide a satisfactory explanation. The FAA considered the amount in question as deemed concealment. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the assessee revised its computation of income for subsequent years after the mistake was noticed but did not voluntarily comply with the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the explanation offered by the assessee was unsatisfactory, leading to the confirmation of the penalty.

Analysis of Legal Precedents:
The Tribunal discussed legal precedents cited by the assessee, such as the case of Price Water House Pvt. Ltd., where the Supreme Court held that a bona fide and inadvertent error in filing the return did not amount to concealment. However, the Tribunal distinguished this case, emphasizing that the present matter involved a claim not allowable under the Act. Another case, Harshad B. Desai, where the penalty was deleted based on peculiar facts, was also discussed. The Tribunal found these cases inapplicable to the current situation due to factual distinctions. Additionally, the Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court decision in Mak Data, highlighting that voluntary disclosure does not absolve an assessee from penalty and emphasizing the statutory duty to declare true income. The Tribunal, following this decision, upheld the penalty against the assessee.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, upholding the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing a satisfactory explanation and complying with statutory duties regarding income disclosure. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the facts, legal precedents, and the assessee's conduct in the case.