2016 (7) TMI 1010 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that - Where an agreeable, controversial or debatable deduction is claimed, the claim could not be false, otherwise, it would become impossible for any assessee to raise any claim or deduction which might be debatable and it was not the intention of the legislature to make punishment such claims, if they were not accepted. The ld. CIT(A) rightly concluded that there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. From the above, it could be safely concluded that as per Explanation 1 to section 271 ( c ) of the Act no penalty could be imposed on the assessee in the facts of the case. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without rebutting presumption in Explanation - 1
2. Deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without appreciating impact on profits and tax liability due to non-compliance with S145A
3. Appeal against CIT(A) order
4. Consideration of case laws in penalty proceedings
5. AO's penalty imposition based on concealment/inaccurate particulars of income
6. Deletion of penalty by CIT(A) based on legal judgments
7. Appeal by revenue challenging deletion of penalty by CIT(A)
8. Interpretation of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c)
9. Legal position regarding furnishing inaccurate particulars of income
10. Upholding CIT(A) order based on Supreme Court decision

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the revenue against the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without rebutting the presumption in Explanation - 1. The AO had initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. The assessee contended that adjustments made under section 145A had no impact on profits, supported by judicial precedents and tax audit reports. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty after considering the submissions.

2. The revenue challenged the deletion of penalty by CIT(A) citing non-compliance with S145A impacting profits and tax liability. The AO had estimated tax based on normal provisions of income and book profit u/s 115JB. The assessee argued that the adjustments made were in compliance with section 145A and did not affect profits. The CIT(A) relied on legal precedents to support the deletion of penalty.

3. The revenue appealed before the Tribunal against the CIT(A)'s order. The Departmental Representative argued that the penalty should not have been deleted as the assessee failed to rebut the presumption in Explanation 1 of section 271(1)(c). The AR for the assessee reiterated their earlier submissions supporting the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty.

4. The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides and reviewed the material on record. It noted that the CIT(A) had passed a reasoned order considering section 145 and Explanation 1 to section 271. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that no penalty could be imposed as per Explanation 1 in the given circumstances.

5. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the mere making of a claim not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Since there was no finding of incorrect details in the return, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not applicable. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order to delete the penalty.