2016 (4) TMI 26 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) - Held that - As the record reveals assesse had filed all the relevant documents, information and events before ld. AO during the course of filing of return for AY 2006-07, assessment proceedings and in AY 2007-08 also. When the order of Hon ble Rajasthan High Court approving the scheme of demerger was passed, the same was also duly and promptly filed by the assesse with ld. AO. These facts have not at all been disputed by the department in any manner. The allegation of concealment or inaccurate particulars has not been established by the ld. A.O. on discovery of any new fact, information or inquiry. The entire adverse inference is drawn on nothing but asseessee s own record and Hon ble High Court approval for demerger schemes after the income tax department is heard. In our considered view there exists no scope to hold that assesssee has concealed any fact or furnished inaccurate particulars in the return of income dtd. 27-11-2006 filed prior to approval of demerger scheme by Hon ble Rajasthan High Court. So also in the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 as it is not disputed that assessee did not claim any set off of loss. Thus we see no justification in alleging that assesssee has concealed any fact or furnished inaccurate particulars in any returns of income. A multitude of undisputed facts mentioned above clearly demonstrate that there were no effort much less intention to conceal any particulars or file any inaccurate particular of income by assessee testing it on the touchstone of preponderance of probability, human conduct, surrounding circumstances or reasonable logic. There is no loss to revenue as assessee has paid all the due taxes. It has not taken any advantage as it has not claimed any set off of such losses in any manner in the subsequent year. There being repetitive and full disclosure of facts and record; there being no loss to revenue as the loss is not set off by the assesse and merely because revised return is not filed by the asssessee, it is desirable the all the surrounding circumstances, human conduct and assessee s explanation are to be considered in harmonious manner. Considering all the aspect we are not in agreement with authorities below that assessee concealed or filed inaccurate particulars of income so as to be liable for impugned penalty. Having filed all the relevant details on several occasions whose veracity is not at all challenged by the revenue, the sole issue remains whether the impugned concealment penalty is legally or factually leviable for not filing of a revised return which was undertaken by assesse. In our considered view penalty provision for not filing a return are different i.e. sec 271(1)(a) and not 271(1)(c). Besides in original return or notice u/s 148 assesssee did not conceal any income or furnished inaccurate particulars. By the time or original return merger scheme was not approved and assesse offered income in return in response to notice u/s 148. It is trite law that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed by picking up one default, the levy is to be considered after carefully considering the entirety of facts, record, assessee s submissions, judicial precedents and applying proper discretion. Any penalty imposed without proper care and in an arbitrary manner has a propensity to become untenable. There is no provision in the IT Act for levying concealment of income u/s 271(1)(c) for non-filing of a return. The relevant provision is sec. 271(1)(a), which is neither initiated nor attracted. Thus the penalty has been imposed for not filing a return and unfounded allegation that assessee filed inaccurate particulars in return of income dtd. 27-11-06 is unsustainable. In our considered view this is not a fit case for imposition of penalty.- Decided in favour of assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act for alleged concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
2. The legal implications of not filing a revised return after the approval of a demerger scheme by the High Court.
3. The relevance of full disclosure of facts and the bona fide intention of the assessee in penalty proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Imposition of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(c):
The sole ground raised by the assessee challenges the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 75 lacs under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, confirmed by the authorities below. The penalty was imposed on the basis that the assessee did not file a revised return after the demerger scheme was approved by the High Court, and continued to claim losses attributable to the resulting company.

2. Legal Implications of Not Filing a Revised Return:
The assessee contended that it had filed its return of income for AY 2006-07 declaring a loss of Rs. 6,44,82,042 without considering the effect of the demerger, as the scheme was not sanctioned by the High Court before the due date of filing the return. The assessee had disclosed all relevant facts and documents to the AO, including the pending demerger application. The AO, however, reduced the loss related to the demerger and converted the assessed loss into an income of Rs. 2,21,82,042, initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c).

3. Full Disclosure of Facts and Bona Fide Intention:
The assessee argued that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, as all relevant details about the demerger were disclosed to the department. It was also highlighted that the assessee did not claim any set-off of the losses in the subsequent year and paid the due taxes, demonstrating bona fide intention. The assessee's explanation for not filing the revised return was due to inadvertence and was supported by evidence.

Tribunal's Observations:
- The Tribunal observed that the assessee had filed all relevant documents, information, and events before the AO during the course of filing the return for AY 2006-07 and in AY 2007-08. The High Court's order approving the demerger scheme was also promptly filed with the AO.
- The allegation of concealment or inaccurate particulars was not established by any new fact, information, or inquiry. The adverse inference was drawn solely on the assessee's own record and the High Court's approval for the demerger scheme.
- The Tribunal noted that there was no loss to revenue as the assessee had not claimed any set-off of the losses in the subsequent year and had paid all due taxes.
- The Tribunal emphasized that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed for not filing a revised return when all relevant details were disclosed and there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars in the original return.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as the assessee had disclosed all relevant facts and there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty was deleted, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed. The Tribunal relied on various judgments, including those of the Supreme Court, to support its decision that penalty should not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so, especially in cases of technical or venial breaches.

← Previous Next →