2018 (6) TMI 419 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - unexplained money u/s 69A - Held that - Mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the Return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars. See CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT Assessee explained his genuine mistake and has surrendered the said amount to the Revenue Authorities and offered to tax. Therefore, the same cannot be held as act of furnishing inaccurate particulars on part of the assessee. Thus, the order of CIT(A) is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Assessment of capital gains as short term vs. long term.
2. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Assessment of capital gains:
The appellant, an employee at a company, initially declared a short term capital gain in the return for the assessment year 2007-08. Later, through a revised return, the appellant claimed the capital gain as a long term capital gain. The Assessing Officer determined the gain as short term based on the date of purchase of shares under the Employees Stock Option Plan (ESOP). This led to a discrepancy between the appellant's declaration and the AO's assessment.

2. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c):
Penalty proceedings were initiated against the appellant under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Assessing Officer held that the appellant provided inaccurate particulars regarding the short term capital gain, resulting in a lower tax liability. The penalty was imposed not only for the capital gain discrepancy but also for other additions like unexplained money. The appellant contested the penalty before the CIT(A) but was unsuccessful.

3. Legal arguments and decisions:
The appellant argued that all relevant documents were provided to the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings, and there was no case of furnishing inaccurate particulars. Citing the decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd, the appellant contended that a mere unsustainable claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Supreme Court's ruling emphasized that the claim made in the return, even if incorrect, does not automatically lead to penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Court highlighted the importance of assessing whether the details provided were found to be incorrect or false.

4. Tribunal's decision:
After considering the arguments and legal precedents, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to establish that the appellant furnished inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision to support its conclusion. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the appellant voluntarily surrendered the amounts in question and offered them for taxation, indicating a genuine mistake rather than intentional misconduct. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and allowed the appellant's appeal, thereby overturning the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c).

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the distinction between inaccurate particulars and unsustainable claims, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence of deliberate misinformation to justify penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.