2015 (12) TMI 134 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - evasion of tax on sale of property - Held that - the assessee has offered the surplus out of OTS to Bank in the books of the company/firm, which is more than the sale under dispute, to tax and also offered to tax the interest income. It shows that there is no intention to conceal the income. The ld. AR also insisting that the sale transaction does not attract income tax and He was under influence of his financial advisers that the sale of property for the purpose of bank settlement is exempt from tax. It shows that assessee was under bonafide belief that the transaction did not attract capital gains tax. It gives impression that the assessee has no intention to conceal any income. Therefore, this is not a fit case to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Accordingly, we cancel the penalty levied by AO u/s 271(1)(c) and allow the appeal of assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against sustaining penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Analysis:
The judgment involves two appeals by different assessees against separate orders dated 23/03/2015 of ld. CIT(A) - VII, Hyderabad for the AY 2006-07. Both assessees are directors of the same company, and the appeals were clubbed due to common facts and issues. The grounds raised in both appeals challenge the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts of the case relate to the sale of jointly held property, subsequent utilization of sale proceeds for company dues, and the alleged concealment of income by the assessee.

The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) based on the assessee's alleged concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The AO observed discrepancies in the sale proceeds utilization and the assessee's explanations regarding the property sale. The AO held that the assessee concealed income by not disclosing the sale transaction in the return filed in response to the notice under section 148. Consequently, a penalty of 200% amounting to Rs. 46,42,000 was levied.

The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who upheld the penalty by emphasizing the lack of a bona fide belief in not offering the gains to tax and the assessee's attempts to evade tax obligations. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee failed to prove a bona fide belief and instead selectively disclosed information to avoid tax liabilities.

In the subsequent appeal before the ITAT Hyderabad, the assessee argued that the sale proceeds were used to clear debts, and no benefit accrued to the assessee personally. The assessee contended that the surplus from the settlement was disclosed in the company's books and that there was no intention to conceal income. The ITAT considered the evidence and explanations offered by the assessee, noting the disclosure of surplus to the bank and the intention behind the transaction. The ITAT found that the assessee acted under a bona fide belief that the transaction did not attract capital gains tax, leading to the cancellation of the penalty under section 271(1)(c).

The ITAT's decision in both appeals was to cancel the penalty levied by the AO under section 271(1)(c) based on the assessee's bonafide belief and the disclosure of the transaction details in the company's books. The ITAT emphasized the absence of an intention to conceal income and the genuine belief of the assessee regarding the tax implications of the transaction. Consequently, both appeals of the assessees were allowed, and the penalties were revoked.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of bona fide belief, disclosure of transaction details, and the intention behind financial decisions in determining the applicability of penalties under tax laws.