9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 390 - HC - Income TaxPenalty under Section 271(1)(c) - claim made under Section 57 - Held that - Assessee, having realised that the expenditure claimed towards travelling under Section 57 of the Act was not tenable, offered the amounts expended to be added to her income and, accordingly, paid the requisite tax and interest upon the same. In our opinion, this was not a case, where, the Assessee could be said to have either concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars of her income. It was, essentially, a case, where, an untenable claim for deduction of travel expenditure under Section 57 of the Act had been made and that too based on the advise of a professional, i.e., an Accountant. - Decided against revenue
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be confirmed against the Assessee for the Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Background and Proceedings: The appeals were preferred by the Revenue against a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 19.06.2015, concerning Assessment Years (A.Y.s) 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11. The core issue was whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be confirmed against the Assessee. 2. Facts: The Assessee claimed deductions for travel expenses under Section 57 of the Act in the relevant A.Ys. The Revenue reopened the assessments for A.Ys. 2008-09 and 2010-11, while A.Y. 2009-10 was picked up for scrutiny. The Assessee offered the travel expenses for taxation, paid the due tax and interest, and the Revenue initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for all three A.Ys. Penalty orders were passed, and the Assessee's appeals to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals -V) [CIT(A)] were dismissed. 3. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeals, reversing the CIT(A)'s order, and deleted the penalties. The Tribunal reasoned that the Assessee's inability to produce records due to the Accountant's absence did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 158, which held that merely making an incorrect claim does not mean inaccurate particulars were furnished. 4. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue argued that the Tribunal's judgment was erroneous in law and facts, and cited the Supreme Court's decision in MAK Data (P) Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income-tax-II [2013] 38 taxmann.com 448 (SC), where it was held that penalty was justified when income disclosure was not voluntary but due to detection during a survey. 5. High Court's Analysis: The High Court examined the Tribunal's reasoning and the facts. It noted that the Assessee's claim under Section 57 was made by her Accountant and was later conceded as untenable. The Court found that the Assessee had not concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars but had made an untenable claim based on professional advice. The Court distinguished the facts from MAK Data (P) Ltd., where the disclosure was not voluntary, and aligned more with CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., where incorrect claims did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. 6. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the Tribunal correctly appreciated the facts and legal principles, determining that the Assessee's actions did not warrant a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Court found no substantial question of law arising from the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it, affirming the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalties. Judgment: The appeals were dismissed, and the Tribunal's order deleting the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) was upheld.
|
