2015 (10) TMI 160 - AT - Income Tax

Levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - expenses not related to earning of income u/s. 56 - AO held that as per the provisions of section 57 assessee could claim expenses u/s. 57 to the expenditure if same were necessary to earn the income u/s.56, that it was impossible to incur expenses of ₹ 4.83 Lakhs to the earn income of ₹ 1,00,308/-,that the expenses were not related to earning of income u/s. 56 - Held that - Undisputed facts of the case are that the assessee borrowed funds for making investment in shares,that she paid interest for purchasing shares,that she made claim of interest expenditure under the head income from other sources,that under that head the assessee had shown loss,that quantum addition was not challenged by her,that AO and FAA were of the opinion that she had filed inaccurate particulars.The assessee was very well aware about the borrowing of the funds and their utilisation. The claim made by the assessee under the provisions of a particular section (section 57)shows that she knew the implication of such claim.Under the Act,the income of an assessee is one and various sections direct the modes in which the income is to be levied. No one of those sections can be treated as general or specific for the purpose of any one particular source of income ; they are all specific and deal with various heads in which an item of income of an assessee falls. These sections are mutually exclusive and where an item of income falls specifically under one head, it has to be charged under that head and no other.Similarly,expenditure incurred by the assessee are directly related to the heads under which same could be claimed. If the assessee makes a claim to reduce his or her tax incidence by changing the heads of expenditure it has to be held that the particulars filed by him or her are not accurate. A return is not only an ordinary documentary. Assessees have to verify the returns and declare that details furnished are true. Therefore,when an totally unsustainable claim is made it cannot be considered a debatable claim about which two views were possible. In the matter before us,there is no ambiguity about the section under which claim for interest expenditure could be made and the assessee knew it.Non filing of appeal against the quantum order prove that the assessee took a chance while filing the return and made a claim that was not permissible by law at all. We are of opinion that the assessee was guilty of filing inaccurate particular of income and thus concealing her income. We hold that the order of the FAA does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Penalty confirmed - confirming his order we decide effective ground of appeal against the assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for inaccurate particulars of income.
2. Claim of deduction for interest expenditure under section 57 of the Income-tax Act.
3. Assessment of bonafide nature of the claim made by the assessee.
4. Comparison of the present case with previous legal judgments relied upon by the assessee.

Issue 1: Penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for inaccurate particulars of income:
The Assessing Officer (AO) levied a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act on the assessee for filing inaccurate particulars of income. The AO found that the assessee had not declared interest income leading to a loss under the head "Income from Other Sources." The assessee admitted the omission but claimed it was unintentional. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the penalty, stating that the claim made by the assessee was not bonafide. The tribunal confirmed the penalty, emphasizing that the assessee knowingly filed inaccurate particulars by claiming expenses unrelated to the income earned.

Issue 2: Claim of deduction for interest expenditure under section 57 of the Income-tax Act:
The assessee claimed deduction for interest expenditure under section 57 of the Act, stating that the borrowed funds were utilized for investments in shares resulting in capital gains. The AO disallowed a portion of the claimed expenses, considering them unrelated to the income earned. The FAA held that the expenditure claimed for investments in shares could be deductible for computing capital gains but not for income from other sources. The tribunal agreed with the FAA's decision, emphasizing that the claim for deduction of interest expenses against income from other sources was not justified.

Issue 3: Assessment of bonafide nature of the claim made by the assessee:
The tribunal analyzed the bonafide nature of the claim made by the assessee for deduction of interest expenses. The FAA concluded that the claim was not bonafide as the borrowed amount was used to earn income/capital gains, and the cases relied upon by the assessee did not support her claim. The tribunal upheld the FAA's decision, stating that the assessee's explanation for the claim was not genuine, leading to the imposition of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Issue 4: Comparison of the present case with previous legal judgments relied upon by the assessee:
The tribunal examined the cases relied upon by the assessee, including Nalin P Shah, Reliance Petro Chemicals, Adity Birla Nova Ltd., and Stingrey Traders P.Ltd. The tribunal found that the facts of the present case were distinguishable from those cases, as the assessee failed to challenge the findings of the quantum proceedings and admitted the omission of income. The tribunal concluded that the cases cited by the assessee did not align with the circumstances of the present case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In summary, the tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) on the assessee for filing inaccurate particulars of income and disallowed the deduction claimed for interest expenditure under section 57 of the Income-tax Act. The tribunal determined that the claim made by the assessee was not bonafide and distinguished the present case from previous legal judgments relied upon by the assessee, ultimately dismissing the appeal.