2016 (6) TMI 31 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s.271 1 c - Held that - Considering the decision from Hon ble Apex Court in CIT vs Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ), wherein, on the issue whether merely because, the assessee has claimed expenditure, which was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue that by itself would not attract penalty, clearly favours the claim of the assessee. Thus in the present case we direct the Ld. Assessing Officer to delete the penalty - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on disallowed salary payments to Managing Director.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns the aggrieved assessee challenging the penalty of ?20,44,735 imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The key issue revolves around the disallowed salary payments to the Managing Director, which led to the penalty imposition. The assessee contended that in similar cases for Assessment years 1999-2000 and 2001-02, penalties under the same section were deleted by the Tribunal, indicating a consistent approach in such matters. The Tribunal referred to its prior order dated 07/01/2011, where penalties were deleted for similar grounds, emphasizing the importance of consistency in decisions. The Tribunal highlighted that the genuineness of the expenditure was not in question, and the Managing Director's services were not doubted by the Department, reinforcing the lack of deliberate concealment or inaccurate reporting by the assessee.

The Tribunal delved into the specifics of the case, noting that the appointment of the Managing Director was as per the Shareholders Agreement, with subsequent changes due to resignations and appointments duly recorded. The Tribunal scrutinized the remuneration paid to the Managing Director, which exceeded limits set by the Companies Act, requiring government approval. The approval for excess payment was obtained, validating the salary payment. The Tribunal emphasized that the mere disallowance of expenditure does not automatically warrant a penalty, especially when the genuineness of the expenditure is established. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal clarified that penalty imposition is not a default consequence of disallowed claims, particularly when legitimate claims are made, as supported by the decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that the case did not merit a penalty, given the factual and legal intricacies involved, leading to the allowance of the assessee's appeal.

In light of the consistent approach in similar cases, the Tribunal's reliance on legal precedents, and the factual matrix indicating no deliberate misrepresentation or concealment, the judgment favored the assessee's position. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty, aligning with the principles established in previous decisions and legal interpretations. The comprehensive analysis provided clarity on the penalty imposition issue, emphasizing the importance of factual accuracy, legal compliance, and precedent consistency in tax penalty assessments.