2016 (11) TMI 722 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - AO was of the opinion that the expenditure should be allowable over a period of five years which is also the period during which the mining is to be conducted - Held that - Disclosure and concealment cannot co-exist. When a finding is recorded that disclosure was indeed made then the conclusion as regards concealment is bad. Furthermore, it cannot also be said that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. This is so because there was no material on record to indicate that the particulars furnished by the assessee were factually incorrect. As held in Reliance Petroproducts 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT merely making a claim which is not sustainable in law by itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. See CIT v. Pilani Investments and Industries Corporation Ltd. 2016 (3) TMI 323 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the judgment and order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Question of law regarding imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Disallowance of expenditure claimed as revenue expenditure.
4. Assessment of whether the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated August 17, 2009, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, pertaining to the assessment year 2005-06. The substantial question of law raised was whether the Tribunal erred in law by not considering the acceptance of disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and the non-filing of an appeal by the assessee, leading to the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

2. It was established that the assessee did not accept the disallowance, and there was no disallowance as claimed. The assessee had paid approximately &8377; 2.75 crores as compensation for mining ores for five years, which was treated as a revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer suggested that the expenditure should be spread over the five-year mining period. The assessee complied with this suggestion and revised subsequent returns. Both the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal concluded that the assessee did not furnish inadequate particulars or conceal income.

3. During the hearing, the advocate for the Revenue did not present any substantial points to alter the court's view. The advocate for the assessee referred to a judgment of the court in a similar case where it was held that if disclosure was made by the assessee, it cannot be considered as concealment. It was emphasized that merely making a claim that is not legally sustainable does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Citing the Reliance Petroproducts case, it was reiterated that a claim not sustainable in law does not constitute inaccurate particulars.

4. The court, considering the arguments and precedents, ruled against the Revenue, concluding that the assessee did not furnish inaccurate particulars of income. The appeal was subsequently dismissed based on the findings and legal interpretations presented during the proceedings.