2015 (11) TMI 1366 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that - The company of this stature can have a mensrea of concealing the particulars of income for a meager sum of ₹ 3 lacs even when all the conditions required for a genuine transaction of commission payments have been brought on record by the assessee company except the agency contract agreement stamp paper, which was purchased on 8th July, 2012 and the clause mentioning the existence of oral agreement between the principal and agent was missing, which could have regularized the service contract w.e.f. 24.11.2001. For this single mistake, it will not be justified to treat the assessee in default and to impose penalty Section 271(1)(c) of the Act refers to the situation whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, which in the case of assessee doesn t seem to apply because assessee has given complete particulars of his income and expenditure and has paid the commission by banking channel and deducted tax at source and out of the total commission expenditure of ₹ 64,77,790/-, Assessing Officer has already allowed the claim of commission of ₹ 61,77,790/- and nothing contrary to the type of services and payment to the agent has been brought before us and therefore, in these circumstances, we do not find any reason to sustain the penalty imposed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act at ₹ 1,07,100/- on the assessee and therefore, we delete the same and allow the ground of assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income related to commission payment to M/s. Arihant Metal Corporation.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal challenges the order of the CIT(A)-IV, Baroda, dated 07.05.2012, regarding the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2002-03.

Issue 2:
The appellant contests the penalty, arguing that the penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is unjustified. The disagreement arises from the disallowance of commission payment to M/s. Arihant Metal Corporation.

Issue 3:
The Assessing Officer disallowed the commission payment of Rs. 3,00,000 to M/s. Arihant Metal Corporation due to discrepancies in the agreement dates. This led to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Issue 4:
The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, stating that the agreement between the parties was not genuine, indicating inaccurate particulars of income. The CIT(A) concluded that the appellant furnished false information, justifying the penalty imposition.

Issue 5:
The appellant argued before the Tribunal that the commission was paid for legitimate services provided by M/s. Arihant Metal Corporation, and the disallowance was based on a technicality regarding the agreement date.

Issue 6:
The Tribunal analyzed the facts and circumstances, emphasizing the genuine nature of the commission payment based on the services provided. The Tribunal noted the business standing of the appellant, the relationship with the agent, and the payment details to justify the commission expenditure.

Issue 7:
The Tribunal found no intention to conceal income, as all relevant details were disclosed, and the payment was made through proper channels. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was unwarranted, deleting the penalty imposed by the lower authorities.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the genuine nature of the commission payment and the lack of intent to conceal income, leading to the deletion of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.