2016 (12) TMI 1010 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(C) - fringe benefits arising out of depreciation on motor car - Held that - Assessing Officer/CIT(Appeals) failed to prove that the explanation of the assessee that only by oversight and inadvertently the depreciation on motor car was not included in the value of fringe benefits. We see no reason other than an inadvertent mistake occurred in not including the depreciation on motor car in the value of fringe benefits because the assessee itself returned the fringe benefits in respect of other expenses like repairs, vehicle hire charges etc. The explanation of the assessee that since this is the first year of the provisions of fringe benefits coming into statute this mistake had happened and there is no such mistake had happened in any of the subsequent assessment years is a bonafide explanation and this is not proved to be false by the revenue authorities. In view of what is stated above we are of the opinion that there is neither concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee in not including the depreciation on motor car in the value of fringe benefits while filing FBT return and it had happened only on an inadvertent mistake by oversight. Hence no penalty is leviable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(C) on fringe benefits of ?8,14,180 arising from depreciation on a motor car.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order by CIT(A)-18, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2006-2007. The assessee raised two grounds, with ground No.1 not pressed. The dispute revolved around the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(C) of the Act on fringe benefits related to depreciation on a motor car. The assessee, a limited company providing detective and security services, inadvertently omitted to include depreciation on motor vehicles while calculating fringe benefits for FBT. The CIT(A) and AO upheld the penalty, alleging non-bonafide conduct by the assessee. The assessee argued that the omission was unintentional, with all expense details on record, and no inaccurate particulars were furnished. Various case laws were cited to support the argument that inadvertent errors do not warrant penalties.

The assessing officer included vehicle hire charges, repairs, and depreciation on motor vehicles in the value of fringe benefits, leading to the penalty imposition. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty on depreciation, considering it a case of negligence and concealment of income. The assessee contended that it was the first year of FBT provisions, leading to an incorrect claim due to misunderstanding the scope of FBT. The assessee emphasized that no intention to evade tax existed, as evident from the total fringe benefits declared. The inadvertent error was attributed to oversight, as supported by the absence of similar mistakes in subsequent years.

A similar case before the Delhi Tribunal highlighted the importance of assessing the bonafide nature of explanations provided by the assessee. In the present case, the explanation of inadvertent omission regarding depreciation on motor car was deemed acceptable, with no evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The tribunal concluded that the penalty under section 271(1)(C) was unwarranted due to the unintentional nature of the error. The judgment favored the assessee, emphasizing the absence of malafide intent and the inadvertent nature of the mistake.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee. The judgment highlighted the inadvertent nature of the omission, the absence of malafide intent, and the lack of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty under section 271(1)(C) was deemed unjustified in light of the circumstances and explanations provided by the assessee.