2014 (7) TMI 947 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Inaccurate particulars furnished Held that - The assessee has offered gain arising out of bonus shares as capital gain and paid tax on the same, assessee rightly contended that he has waited for more time to transfer the bonus shares there would have been a long term capital gain which was exempt at that point of time - there was no reason for the assessee to evade tax - the authorities below were not justified in imposing the penalty - the penalty notice was issued by the AO is also defective in view of CIT vs. Whiteford India Ltd. 2014 (2) TMI 541 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Legality of confirming penalty under Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act
2. Merits of penalty under Sec.271(1)(c) based on disclosure of information and tax payment

Issue 1 - Legality:
The appeal challenged the confirmation of penalty under Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act by the Ld.CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2008-09. The Assessee contended that the initiation of penalty proceedings lacked satisfaction of concealment, violating the principles of Sec.271(1)(c). It was argued that the Penalty Order and Show Cause Notice were ambiguous, as they did not specify whether the offense was concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Citing the judgment of the Hon.Gujarat High Court in a similar case, the Assessee sought the cancellation of the penalty, claiming it was void in law. The grounds of appeal also addressed the merits of the penalty, asserting that all necessary details for computing income were voluntarily submitted, thus challenging the applicability of Sec.271(1)(c).

Issue 2 - Merits:
The facts presented during the assessment revealed that the Assessee claimed Long Term Capital Gain, which was later deemed as short-term due to the sale of bonus shares within a year. The AO imposed a penalty under Sec.271(1)(c) for concealment of income, which the Assessee disputed. The Assessee's representative argued that the penalty was unjustified, as all material information was disclosed, and taxes were paid. Referring to a relevant judgment, the representative contended that there was no suppression of information, and the AO's penalty initiation was questionable. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and relevant case law, found that the penalty imposition was not justified. It was observed that the AO's penalty notice lacked a clear finding on whether the Assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars, as required by law. Given that the Assessee had declared and paid tax on the gain from bonus shares, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty was unwarranted. Relying on the precedent set by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, emphasizing the defective nature of the penalty notice.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies involved in challenging the penalty under Sec.271(1)(c) and the importance of clear findings in penalty proceedings to ensure procedural fairness and compliance with the law.