2018 (5) TMI 1688 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition u/s 80D in revision of return filed u/s 153A - additional income offered suo moto - Held that - The conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed - the assessee himself offered the additional income in revised return of income - Everything depends upon the return of income filed, because return of income is the only document, where the assessee can furnish the particular of income. When such particulars found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise. In the present case, the assessee offered additional income of ₹ 2,00,000/-, which was accepted by Assessing Officer. We have noted that the Assessing Officer has not recorded his satisfaction that return of income was found to be incorrect or erroneous or false - No penalty levied - Decided in favor of assessee. Imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for failure to file return of income - Held that - There was no incorrect particular furnished by the assessee while filing revised return of income and there is no evasion of tax - failure to furnish return causes penalty u/s 271F - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12.
2. Penalty under Section 271AAA for Assessment Year 2011-12.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year 2009-10:
The assessee appealed against the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. The assessee had voluntarily offered an additional income of ?2,00,000 as commission income in the revised return filed under Section 153A, which was initially considered as exempt dividend income in the original return. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated the penalty on this additional income and a deduction of ?15,000 claimed under Section 80D, which was not claimed earlier. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty on the additional income but deleted it for the deduction under Section 80D. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had voluntarily revised the return and no inaccurate particulars were found. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd., which held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not applicable if the AO does not find the return to be incorrect or erroneous. Hence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty.

2. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year 2010-11:
The assessee appealed against the penalty of ?90,946 confirmed by the CIT(A) for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. The AO had levied the penalty on the income declared in response to the notice under Section 153A, arguing that the income would not have been declared without the search. The Tribunal observed that the AO had not recorded any satisfaction that the particulars of income were inaccurate or concealed. The Tribunal again relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. and found that no penalty was leviable as no inaccurate particulars were furnished. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty.

3. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year 2011-12:
The assessee appealed against the penalty of ?25,340 confirmed by the CIT(A) for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. The issue arose from an oversight where the income from meeting fees was reported net of TDS in the original return but corrected in the revised return. The AO levied the penalty on the additional income offered in the revised return. The Tribunal noted that the TDS amount was already deposited and there was no tax evasion. The Tribunal held that the omission was bona fide and no inaccurate particulars were furnished. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty.

4. Penalty under Section 271AAA for Assessment Year 2011-12:
The assessee appealed against the penalty of ?1,60,975 confirmed by the CIT(A) for undisclosed income. During the search, the assessee had declared undisclosed jewellery income of ?15,62,870 but did not include it in the original return. The AO levied the penalty for not substantiating the manner of deriving the undisclosed income. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had specified and substantiated the manner of deriving the income during the search and in subsequent communications. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not properly consider the assessee's explanations and that the penalty was not justified. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed all the appeals filed by the assessee, deleting the penalties levied under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271AAA for the respective assessment years. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the AO's satisfaction regarding the concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and the voluntary nature of the revised returns filed by the assessee.