2015 (9) TMI 173 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty U/s 271(1)(c) - CIT(A) deleted part addition - Held that - Explanation-1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act raises a presumption of concealment when a difference is noticed by the Assessing Officer between the reported and assessed income. The burden is then on the assessee to show otherwise by cogent and reliable evidence. When the initial onus placed by the explanation has been discharged by him, the onus shifted to the department to show that the amount in question constituted income and not otherwise. In case before us, the assessee has no intention to declare its true income. It is further held that satisfaction of the Assessing Officer need not to be recorded in a particular manner. Same view also expressed by the Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shyamraj Singh (2014 (5) TMI 776 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT ). The satisfaction for initiation of penalty is coupled with the findings of the assessment order would show that satisfaction existed in the course of assessment itself and deemed to constitute satisfaction. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Testile Processors 2008 (9) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT has held that willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability. The assessee intentionally claimed the capital expenditure as revenue expenditure on new project (i.e. cement), which was separate activity of the assessee company from the existing business i.e. production of fertilizers. Therefore, we uphold the order of the ld CIT(A). - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act
- Dispute regarding classification of expenses as capital or revenue expenditure
- Allegation of concealing income by claiming capital expenditure as revenue expenditure

Analysis:
1. The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur involved cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue against the order passed by the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2004-05. The primary issue revolved around the imposition and partial maintenance of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings due to discrepancies in the income declared by the assessee company and the income assessed. The additions made were related to deferred taxation provision and new project expenses, which were claimed as revenue expenditure but deemed capital in nature. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, leading to the appeals before the Tribunal.

2. The assessee contended that the new project expenses were revenue expenditure and not capital in nature, citing various legal precedents. However, the revenue argued for the confirmation of the full penalty amount. The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the expenses claimed by the assessee and concluded that the expenses related to the new project were indeed capital in nature. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had concealed income by falsely claiming capital expenditure as revenue expenditure. The legal position was established that when an expenditure is prima facie inadmissible in law, claiming it without evidence to support its deductibility constitutes concealment of income.

3. The Tribunal referred to precedents such as the case of Chadda Sugar P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT and CIT Vs. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. to support the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) in cases of inaccurate particulars of income. It was emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the assessee to demonstrate the legitimacy of claimed deductions. The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanations were not bona fide and failed to provide reliable evidence to support the claimed deductions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) against the assessee.

4. The Tribunal further clarified that the intention to conceal income need not be willful for civil liability to arise, as established in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors. In this case, the assessee's misclassification of capital expenditure as revenue expenditure for a separate project activity was deemed intentional concealment of income. The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed both the assessee's and revenue's appeals, upholding the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A).

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the CIT(A) regarding the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) against the assessee for concealing income by claiming capital expenditure as revenue expenditure. The legal precedents and burden of proof requirements were crucial in determining the outcome of the appeals before the Tribunal.