2017 (6) TMI 16 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty levied u/s 271 (1 )(c) - non-disclosure of capital gain on the sale of agricultural land under the bonafide belief of its non- taxability - Held that - CIT-A has himself accepted that the assessing officer at the beginning was not clear as to whether it is a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Assessee cannot be held guilty of contumacious conduct so as to warrant levy of penalty under section 271 (1) (c). This view is supported by the larger bench of honourable apex court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd., vs. State of Orissa 1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME Court Accordingly the conduct of the assessee was not contumacious so as to warrant levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c). This is more so when at the beginning of the enquiry the assessing officer was not clear as to whether there is a concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly we set aside the order s of authorities below and delete the levy of penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Issue 1: Confirmation of Penalty by CIT(A)
The assessee appealed against the order of the Ld. CIT-A confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer. The grounds of appeal highlighted the contention that the penalty was confirmed without appreciating the facts of the case and the bonafide belief of non-taxability of capital gains from the sale of agricultural land. The appellant argued that the rejection of a legal claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, and the mere rejection of the assessee's explanation during assessment proceedings should not lead to the levy of penalty.

2. Issue 2: Assessment and Observations by Assessing Officer
The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had sold land claimed as exempt from capital gains tax under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Income Tax Act. Upon verification, it was found that the land was within the 2 km limit of the Pardi Municipality, contrary to the assessee's claim. The AO concluded that the assessee knowingly provided incorrect information regarding the capital gain, land, and population at Pardi, leading to the suppression of income. Consequently, the sale of land was deemed liable for capital gains tax, and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated.

3. Issue 3: Proceedings and Appeals
The appellant requested to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance pending appeals before the CIT(A) and ITAT. However, both the CIT(A) and ITAT confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee for explanation, but no response was received, resulting in the levy of a penalty amounting to ?5,80,258 under section 271(1)(c).

4. Issue 4: Tribunal's Decision
Upon hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had sold agricultural land based on a bonafide belief that it was not subject to capital gains tax. The Tribunal considered the conflicting views regarding the nature of the assessee's conduct, whether it amounted to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Citing the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee's conduct did not warrant a penalty under section 271(1)(c) due to the lack of contumacious behavior. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and deleted the penalty levy, allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment favored the assessee, ruling that the conduct did not amount to contumacious behavior justifying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income.