2018 (7) TMI 119 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Addition on account of sundry outstanding creditors - Held that - The assessee has duly disclosed the sundry creditors in its books of accounts, which were not verified during the assessment proceedings for want of present address. But that does not mean that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The impugned sundry creditors are arising from the purchases which have not been disturbed by the lower authorities. Lower authorities have accepted the purchases but corresponding creditors have been added to the total income of the assessee for want of the address. In our considered view the addition on account of sundry creditors arising out of purchases cannot be added without disturbing the corresponding purchases. Sundry creditors arising out of the purchases which were debited in the profit & loss account as revenue expenses - None of lower authorities have been brought on record that there was a deliberate act on the parts of the assessee suggesting that the assessee has claimed bogus purchases either by concealing the income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In view of above we reverse the order of the authorities below. The ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Allegation of concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
3. Validity of sundry creditors and corresponding purchases.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Imposition of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The core issue revolves around the imposition of a penalty amounting to ?2,73,567/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to the addition of ?8,20,652/- to the total income of the assessee on account of sundry creditors deemed bogus. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and issued a notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c). The assessee contended that the addition was accepted to avoid litigation and maintain peace of mind, asserting that there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.

2. Allegation of Concealment of Income and Furnishing of Inaccurate Particulars of Income:
The assessee argued that the outstanding sundry creditors were genuine and supported by vouchers and weigh bridge slips. The purchases were made from local persons authorized by the Gram Panchayat, who did not maintain formal books of accounts. Despite this, the AO disallowed the amount due to the failure to provide current addresses of the creditors and deemed the creditors as bogus. The CIT(A) upheld the AO’s decision, referencing the Supreme Court decision in MAK Data (P.) Ltd., which states that an agreed addition does not preclude penalty imposition. The CIT(A) found the explanation regarding delayed payments to small farmers implausible and unsupported by evidence.

3. Validity of Sundry Creditors and Corresponding Purchases:
The assessee highlighted that the sundry creditors were paid in the subsequent year, and the purchases were genuine, as evidenced by weigh bridge slips. The assessee’s gross profit ratio improved compared to the previous year, suggesting the genuineness of transactions. The assessee also cited the Supreme Court ruling in CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., which states that a mere disallowance of a claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Revenue’s contention that the payments were made in cash and unverifiable was noted, but the assessee maintained that the creditors were legitimate.

Judgment:
The Tribunal observed that the assessment and penalty proceedings are independent. The sundry creditors were disclosed in the books of accounts, and the purchases were not disputed by the authorities. The addition was made solely due to the lack of current addresses of creditors, not because of any concealment or inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities accepted the purchases while disallowing the corresponding creditors, which was inconsistent. The Tribunal concluded that the addition and the consequent penalty were unjustified, as there was no deliberate act of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. The Tribunal reversed the orders of the lower authorities and allowed the appeal of the assessee.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was annulled. The Tribunal emphasized the independence of assessment and penalty proceedings and found no basis for the penalty given the genuine nature of the purchases and the subsequent payments to creditors.

← Previous Next →