2016 (1) TMI 319 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) - Held that - In the instant case, the assessee has disclosed all the income and claimed certain deductions, which was disallowed. The mere fact that certain deductions were disallowed does not mean that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars. It does not mean that assessee has concealed the particulars of his income. Further, we find that the assessee had given an explanation on the additions and deductions sought, which were found to be genuine and bonafide. Such appreciation of the assessee s statement makes it apparently clear that there had been no occasion for the assessing officer to impose penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1981-82.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Allahabad High Court pertains to the imposition of a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1981-82. The assessee had filed their return of income, disclosing various additions and deductions. The assessing officer made certain additions and deductions to the assessee's income, leading to the initiation of penalty proceedings. The assessing officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs, alleging that the assessee had disclosed inaccurate particulars. However, the assessee's appeal was allowed, and the order of penalty was set aside by the CIT, holding that the assessee had provided a valid and satisfactory explanation, and their stand was bona fide, thus no penalty could be imposed.

The tribunal, being aggrieved by the decision, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The High Court, after hearing both counsels, emphasized that for the imposition of a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), there must be concealment of the particulars of income. In this case, the assessee had disclosed all income and claimed deductions, even though some were disallowed. The court noted that the disallowance of deductions does not automatically imply inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The assessee had provided explanations for the additions and deductions, which were deemed genuine and bona fide.

The court concluded that there was no manifest error in the tribunal's order and that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The judgment underscores the importance of establishing concealment of income for the imposition of penalties under the Income Tax Act and highlights the significance of genuine and bona fide explanations provided by the assessee in such cases.