2018 (2) TMI 1369 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) - unexplained investment from undisclosed sources - Held that - We find ourselves in agreement plea raised on behalf of the assessee that sufficient ambiguity exist in the interpretation of cancellation agreement from Kuoni Travels India Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, benefit of doubt should be given to the assessee and discretion for non imposing the penalty should be exercised in favour of the assessee. Similarly as regard penalty arising an addition of ₹ 58,500/- attributable to M/s. Prabhat Automation, verified some merit in the plea of the assessee for non imposition of penalty having regards to the fact narrated by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in quantum proceeding. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Controverting findings and furnishing concrete evidence.
2. Justification of penalty under section 271(1)(c).
3. Confirmation of penalty amounting to ?8,10,500.
4. Deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c).

Analysis:

Issue 1: Controverting findings and furnishing concrete evidence
The case involved an appeal by the assessee against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-II's order for the Assessment Year 2005-06. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of ?32,32,404 on account of unexplained investment from undisclosed sources. The penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated and upheld by the CIT(A). However, the assessee presented evidence from a co-ordinate bench order in a similar case, highlighting discrepancies in the assessment. The co-ordinate bench order emphasized that no payment was received or accrued during the relevant period, leading to the deletion of the quantum. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's plea, citing ambiguity in the interpretation of the cancellation agreement, and exercised discretion in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal.

Issue 2: Justification of penalty under section 271(1)(c)
The Assessing Officer imposed penalties on the additions made to the income purportedly received by the assessee. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument regarding ambiguity in the interpretation of the cancellation agreement with Kuoni Travels India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal also noted the plea for non-imposition of penalty concerning the addition attributable to M/s. Prabhat Automation. Considering the ambiguity and the benefit of doubt in favor of the assessee, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the need for a cautious approach in penalty imposition.

Issue 3: Confirmation of penalty amounting to ?8,10,500
The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) amounting to ?8,10,500. However, the Tribunal, after considering the evidence presented by the assessee and the discrepancies in the assessment, decided to delete the penalty, exercising discretion in favor of the assessee based on the ambiguity in the interpretation of the cancellation agreement and the merits of the case presented.

Issue 4: Deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c)
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, emphasizing the need to consider the ambiguity in the facts and the benefit of doubt in interpreting the contractual agreements. The Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was based on the lack of concrete evidence supporting the additions made by the Assessing Officer, highlighting the importance of a cautious approach in penalty imposition based on the merits of each case.