2018 (1) TMI 854 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - proof of furnishing inaccurate particulars - addition of improvement and transfer expenses incurred for the purposes of the property sold - Held that - AO has not made any allegations of assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Additions in fact have been made on account of improvement and transfer expenses incurred for the purposes of the property sold. Assessee has also made certain payments to one Mr.Anumod Sharma towards the dispute in the property sold under a compromise agreement which is a part of records. Further it would not be incorrect to hold that no information given in the return was found to be incorrect by Assessing Officer and disallowance is strictly because of a difference of opinion by Ld. AO. Hon ble Delhi High Court has accepted assessee s appeal against quantum order passed by ITAT on the following question of law Did the Tribunal fall into error in holding that the deduction claimed by assessee did not fall within what was permissible under section 48 (i) of the Income Tax Act? Thus once question of law has been admitted by Jurisdictional High Court the issue becomes debatable and no penalty can be levied under such circumstances. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed by AO
2. Validity of Ld.CIT(A)'s order
3. Applicability of case laws
4. Consideration of facts in penalty proceedings

Analysis:

Issue 1: Deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed by AO
The case involved an appeal by the revenue against the deletion of a penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Ld.CIT(A) deleted the penalty by considering that filing a claim not accepted during assessment does not constitute "filing inaccurate particulars." The auditor's report supported the details provided in the return, indicating no inaccurate particulars were furnished. The Ld.CIT(A) emphasized that the disallowances made were due to a difference of opinion, not concealment of income. The Ld.CIT(A) also noted that the case was similar to precedents and that penalty and assessment proceedings are separate.

Issue 2: Validity of Ld.CIT(A)'s order
The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and observations made by the Ld.CIT(A) and found that no allegations of furnishing inaccurate particulars were made by the AO. The additions were based on improvement and transfer expenses related to the property sold, not on incorrect information provided by the assessee. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld.CIT(A) that no penalty should be levied as the disallowance was due to a difference of opinion and the matter was debatable following the acceptance of the appeal by the High Court.

Issue 3: Applicability of case laws
The Ld.CIT(A) cited various case laws to support the decision to delete the penalty, emphasizing that the facts of the case did not align with those considered by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal also considered the precedence set by the Hon'ble High Courts and this Tribunal, which consistently held that once a question of law is admitted by the Jurisdictional High Court, the issue becomes debatable, and no penalty should be imposed.

Issue 4: Consideration of facts in penalty proceedings
The Tribunal noted that the penalty proceedings and assessment proceedings are distinct, and certain crucial facts, such as the company's lack of business activity due to losses and the health of directors, were overlooked by the AO. The Tribunal highlighted that the acceptance of the appeal by the High Court on a question of law made the issue debatable, further supporting the decision to dismiss the grounds raised by the revenue and uphold the deletion of the penalty by the Ld.CIT(A).

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the decision to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) by the AO, based on the considerations of factual accuracy, legal precedents, and the debatable nature of the issue following the acceptance of the appeal by the High Court.