2018 (8) TMI 1422 - HC - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - ITAT deleted the penalty - Additions u/s 41(1) - one time settlement with the SBI - Bank has waived a sum including interest - assessee has not furnished bifurcation of principal and interest amount in the total amount waived off by the bank and has claimed the entire amount as principal amount without giving any details. whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee has furnished full particulars of income with regard to the waiver of loan by the Bank in its return particularly when the assessee had not given any particulars of its income under Section 41(1) of the Act neither in the Return filed under Section 139 (1) nor in the Return filed in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act Held that - the dispute between the parties is purely a dispute of facts. We do not find any substantial question of law in the present appeal. - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to ITAT order confirming reversal of penalty for not furnishing accurate income particulars.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the ITAT order confirming the reversal of the penalty imposed by the AO for not providing accurate income details. The appellant company declared a net loss in its income tax return for a specific assessment year. Subsequently, the company settled a loan with a bank, resulting in the waiver of a significant amount, which the company reported to the IT department. The AO reopened the case under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act to consider this waiver. The AO imposed a penalty on the company for not providing a detailed breakdown of the waived amount, considering it as incorrect income particulars under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

2. The First Appellate Authority and the ITAT both ruled in favor of the company, stating that the company had disclosed the waiver of the amount in its financial records and relevant documents provided by the bank. They noted that the lack of clarity from the bank regarding the allocation of the payment made it difficult for the company to provide a detailed breakdown. The ITAT held that there was no deliberate concealment of income by the company, thus overturning the penalty imposed by the AO.

3. The appellant contended that the ITAT erred in its decision, arguing that the assessment order findings should be conclusive for penalty imposition. They questioned whether the company had provided full income particulars regarding the loan waiver, especially since no specific details were included in the returns filed under the Act. The appellant cited a previous case to support the argument that in cases of concealment of income, penalties are justified.

4. In response, the respondent relied on precedents where penalties were not imposed when incorrect information was provided due to genuine mistakes or circumstances beyond the assessee's control. They argued that the company's inability to provide precise details was due to factors outside their control, similar to the situations in the cited cases, leading to exoneration by the CIT (Appeals) I and the ITAT.

5. After considering the arguments and circumstances of the case, the High Court found the issue to be primarily factual. They concluded that no substantial legal question arose from the appeal and dismissed it accordingly. The judgment highlighted the distinction between cases of deliberate concealment and those where inaccuracies arose from genuine difficulties in providing specific information.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the arguments presented and the court's decision regarding the penalty for not furnishing accurate income particulars.