2016 (8) TMI 323 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c)- addition made under section 68 - Held that - The appellant has shown correct business income in their return of income. He has not filed any inaccurate particulars of income because in the computation part, the income has been shown correctly and no such ambiguity is pointed out therein. Schedule CYLA and BFLA is with respect to the adjustment of income as per provisions of the IT Act. The assessee has also filed return for the assessment year 2008-09 in which also, the assessee has not taken any benefit of the above amount of difference of ₹ 7,86,721/-. In presence of these facts, in our considered opinion, the contention of the assessee cannot be straightway rejected that such error may occur due to software problem. We, therefore, find that the assessee is not liable for penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. As a result, the appeal of the assessee is found to have merit - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) for addition made under section 68 in reassessment order for the assessment year 2007-08.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for an addition made under section 68 in the reassessment order. The appellant argued that the reassessment order was beyond jurisdiction and that all relevant facts were disclosed during assessment proceedings. Additionally, the appellant claimed that penalty proceedings are independent of quantum proceedings, and the failure to appeal against the addition in quantum proceedings should not lead to penalty imposition.

2. The case involved the appellant filing its income tax return electronically, which led to discrepancies in the income declared. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed a difference of ?7,86,721 between the income declared and the actual figures, which was added back to the total income under section 68 of the Act. The appellant chose not to appeal the addition but later surrendered the amount. Subsequently, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for inaccurate income particulars.

3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the penalty, stating that the appellant failed to prove that the discrepancies were due to inadvertent errors and not intentional. The appellant's argument that the penalty and assessment proceedings are separate was dismissed, and the penalty was confirmed based on inaccurate income particulars furnished.

4. The appellant appealed to the ITAT, arguing that the discrepancies were due to software errors in the electronic filing process. The appellant maintained that correct income was declared, and any discrepancies were unintentional. The ITAT examined the return forms and concluded that the appellant had shown correct income in the operative parts of the return. The ITAT found no evidence of inaccurate income particulars and ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the penalty was unwarranted in the given circumstances.

5. The ITAT held that the appellant was not liable for penalty as the discrepancies were due to software issues, and the correct income was declared in the return. The ITAT allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the appellant's contentions were valid in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

6. In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal, overturning the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for inaccurate income particulars, based on the appellant's correct income declaration and the software-related discrepancies.