2015 (8) TMI 427 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - assessee has debited this income of ₹ 26,63,283 out of total pre- operative expenses of ₹ 7,57,43,555 as he claimed net pre-operative expenses as ₹ 7,30,84,272 which was not correct and the amount of ₹ 26,63,283 ought to have been treated as income, earned during April 1, 1999, to May 31, 1999, for the purpose of assessment - Held that - From the record we find that there was no inaccuracy in particulars of income furnished by the assessee. Out of various receipts, the assessee wrongly deducted aforesaid amount from his total pre-operative expenses while making computation of income. Wrong deduction of an amount for computation of income in the return submitted by the assessee is different. It cannot be equated with concealment. In our view it would not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income so as to attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961.The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and Tribunal both have recorded concurrent finding holding that there was no concealment of particulars of income by the assessee. Therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961, was not attracted - Decided in favour of assessee. Decision in CIT v. Prithpal Singh and Co. (2000 (7) TMI 75 - SUPREME Court) would have no application to the case in hand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act regarding penalty imposition.
2. Application of judicial precedents in determining penalty for inaccurate particulars of income.
3. Assessment of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment by the assessee.
4. Consideration of Explanation 4 to section 271 of the Income-tax Act.
5. Justification for penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) when the assessed figure is less.

Issue 1: Interpretation of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act regarding penalty imposition:
The High Court analyzed whether the Assessing Officer's satisfaction about concealment in the assessment order under section 271(1)(c) was sufficient for penalty imposition. It was noted that the Assessing Officer must record the existence of ingredients attracting penal provisions to justify penal proceedings, even if not explicitly mentioning the need for initiating penalty. Judicial precedents emphasized the importance of the assessing authority forming its own opinion and recording satisfaction before initiating penalty proceedings.

Issue 2: Application of judicial precedents in determining penalty for inaccurate particulars of income:
The Court referred to various judgments highlighting the necessity for the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction before levying penalties under section 271(1)(c). Cases such as CIT v. Auto Lamps Ltd. and CIT v. Vikas Promoters P. Ltd. emphasized the penal nature of section 271(1)(c) and the requirement for strict construction of the law. The Court also cited decisions like Karanvir Singh Gossal v. CIT and Nainu Mal Het Chand v. CIT to support the importance of Assessing Officers recording satisfaction before penalty imposition.

Issue 3: Assessment of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment by the assessee:
The Court examined a case where the assessee disclosed an amount in the account books but wrongly deducted it from total pre-operative expenses, leading to an incorrect computation of income. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty based on this wrong deduction, considering it as furnishing incorrect particulars of income. However, the Court held that the wrong deduction did not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, especially when there was no inaccuracy in the income details furnished by the assessee.

Issue 4: Consideration of Explanation 4 to section 271 of the Income-tax Act:
The Court addressed the applicability of Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2002, was clarificatory in nature. The Court referenced CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food P. Ltd. to establish that the penalty could be levied even if concealed income reduced the returned loss. The Court concluded that Explanation 4 was clarificatory and not substantive, rejecting the application of certain judicial precedents to the case at hand.

Issue 5: Justification for penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) when the assessed figure is less:
The Court considered whether a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act could be imposed when the assessed figure was less. It was determined that the Tribunal's decision to allow the assessee's cross-objection was unsustainable, and questions regarding the imposition of penalty were answered in favor of the Revenue. The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the Tribunal's decision on the assessee's cross-objection while upholding the judgment on the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Allahabad High Court provides insights into the interpretation of legal provisions, application of judicial precedents, assessment of inaccurate particulars of income, consideration of statutory explanations, and the justification for penalty imposition under the Income-tax Act.