2017 (5) TMI 480 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) - wrong computation of income with regard to STCG - Held that - We find that the assessee had filed all the details about the assets sold during the year, that figures picked up by the AO for making addition are part of the return of income filed by the assessee. Thus,in our opinion, prima facie the assessee had not concealed any particular of income.There was difference of opinion between the AO and the assessee about the treatment to be given to the amount in question.No authority is required to be cited to hold that assessment and penalty proceedings are two independent proceedings and that quantum addition should not and cannot result in automatic levy of concealment penalty.The AO is required to consider the explanation filed by the assessee during the penalty proceedings to decide the levy of penalty. If a claim made by an assessee is not permissible legally, it cannot be held that by lodging such a claim it had filed inaccurate particulars. In the case under consideration, the AO made the additions invoking the provisions of section 50 C of the Act. Even at the time of penalty order there was no unanimity that the provisions of section 50C would be applicable to section 48 only or they would be applicable to section 50 also. Thus, there was difference of opinion about the addition. So in our opinion, penalty was not leviable for such a disputed issue. We find that in the case of Panchiram Nahata (2009 (11) TMI 817 - ITAT KOLKATA ) the Tribunal has held that where it was not in dispute that sold asset was depreciable asset, the AO was not justified in adopting the value as per stamp duty authorities. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to order of CIT (A) regarding penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, an assessee-company involved in manufacturing and trading of process control instruments, filed its return of income declaring &8377; 21,47,56,506/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment determining income at &8377; 31,07,81,998/-. The effective ground of appeal was the deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) by the AO.

2. The AO initiated penalty proceedings alleging inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of particulars to avoid taxes. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that penalty was levied in view of section 50C, relating to the sale of a building. The FAA referred to relevant legal cases and held that the penalty was not justified as all income particulars were disclosed by the assessee.

3. During the hearing, the Departmental Representative argued that the assessee provided a wrong computation for Short-Term Capital Gains (STCG), while the Authorized Representative contended that the computation was integral to the return of income. The Tribunal found that the AO and the assessee had a difference of opinion on the treatment of the amount in question, making the penalty not leviable for a disputed issue.

4. The Tribunal cited cases where penalties were deleted due to debatable issues under section 50C. It upheld the FAA's decision, emphasizing that the assessee had furnished all transaction details, and the AO failed to prove inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the FAA's order.

5. The Tribunal concluded that the FAA's order was legally sound, following precedents cited by the assessee. Therefore, the appeal filed by the AO was dismissed, and the order was pronounced on 3rd May 2017.