2008 (2) TMI 239 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty - Assessee claimed a certain amount as business expenditure incurred on education of one Varun on basis of a written agreement - there is any material to this effect available on the record that the said agreement was false - assessee had not claimed the expenditure intentionally and deliberately in order to evade the tax liability - therefore, in view of above fact, CIT (Appeals) has rightly deleted the penalty - No substantial question of law is involved revenue appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of business expenditure claimed by the assessee for the Assessment Years 1996-97 and 1997-98.
- Imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.
- Appeal filed by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the penalty.
- Dismissal of the penalty by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
- Revenue's appeal before the ITAT against the Commissioner's order.
- ITAT's decision to dismiss the revenue's appeal and uphold the deletion of penalty by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to the disallowance of business expenditure claimed by the assessee for the Assessment Years 1996-97 and 1997-98. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the expenditure, adding it to the income of the assessee. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act to impose a penalty on the grounds of claiming wrong deductions. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax imposed a penalty equivalent to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) later deleted the penalty, concluding that the case was not fit for imposition of penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c). The revenue then filed appeals before the ITAT challenging the Commissioner's order.

The ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeals, emphasizing that the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings stand on different footings. The ITAT noted that the mere disallowance of claimed expenditure does not automatically warrant penal action unless there is evidence of willful omission or neglect by the assessee. The ITAT highlighted that the revenue did not provide material to support the inference of willful omission or neglect in this case. Referring to legal precedents, the ITAT concluded that the explanations furnished by the assessee were not false, and there was no indication that complete particulars or details were withheld. Therefore, the ITAT affirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the deletion of the penalty.

The High Court, after reviewing the case, found no grounds to interfere with the ITAT's decision. It noted that the assessee had claimed the expenditure based on a written agreement regarding the education of an individual who was to serve the company for a specified period after completing studies abroad. The Court observed that there was no evidence to suggest the agreement was false or fabricated. Consequently, the Court agreed with the ITAT's findings that the penalty was rightly deleted as there was no indication of intentional or deliberate evasion of tax liability by the assessee. As no substantial question of law was identified, the Court dismissed the appeals.