2017 (3) TMI 27 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - addition u/s 68 - Held that - The issue of levying penalty-where penalty is initiated for concealing particulars of income/furnishing inaccurate particulars and penalty is not levied on account of same default-has been dealt by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon ble Supreme Court in the cases of SSA S emrald Meadows (2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SUPREME COURT) Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ). The Hon ble courts have held that where the AO initiates proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) for concealment particulars of income but levies penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars the penalty order could not be sustained. Respectfully following the above judgments of the Hon ble courts we decide the effective ground of appeal in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of unsecured loans, invoking section 68 of the Act, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for inaccurate particulars of income, challenge to penalty imposition, reliance on judicial precedents for penalty levied.

Assessment of Unsecured Loans:
The assessee filed a return of income declaring &8377; 10.89 lakhs, but the AO determined the income at &8377; 17.73 lakhs after finding unsecured loans of &8377; 72.26 lakhs. Specifically, an unsecured loan of &8377; 6 lakhs from a party was questioned by the AO due to lack of creditworthiness proof, resulting in an addition to the income invoking section 68 of the Act.

Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c):
The AO initiated penalty proceedings for inaccurate particulars of income, alleging that the assessee could not establish the creditworthiness of the loan provider. Despite the assessee's explanations, a penalty of &8377; 2.02 lakhs was imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Challenge to Penalty Imposition:
The assessee appealed the penalty imposition before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), arguing that the AO disregarded financial statements showing the lender's capital, and all transactions were through banking channels. The FAA upheld the penalty, noting the absence of documentary evidence from the assessee to support the claim of accepting the addition to avoid litigation.

Reliance on Judicial Precedents for Penalty Levied:
During the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the AR contended that penalty should not be automatically levied for additions made, citing relevant case laws. The Tribunal referred to judgments by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court, which held that where penalty is initiated for one reason but levied for another, the penalty order cannot be sustained. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment showcases the issues involved, the assessment of unsecured loans, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), challenge to penalty imposition, and the reliance on judicial precedents for the penalty levied, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case.