2019 (3) TMI 505 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - disallowance of certain expenses made on an adhoc basis by the AO - HELD THAT - The assessee placed on record the comparative chart of various expenses for the years ending 31/03/2008 to 31/03/2012 wherein we find that the expenditure incurred during the year had not varied substantially with that in the earlier years or in the subsequent years. Either way, the penalty has been levied only on the disallowance of expenses made on adhoc basis. As find from the list of expenses debited in the P & L account that the same are purely regular business expenditure. Hence, no penalty could be levied for concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income thereon for mere disallowance of claim of expenses made by the assessee. Reliance is placed in this regard on the decision in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., reported 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT . In view of our aforesaid findings and respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedents, we direct the Ld. AO to cancel the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c ) - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the IT Act for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Analysis:
1. Issue: Justification of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.
- The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the penalty imposition. The primary issue was whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in upholding the penalty.

2. Analysis: Disallowance of expenses and penalty imposition.
- The assessee, a partnership firm, declared a loss in the return of income for the year 2010-11. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed various expenses claimed by the assessee related to share trading activities. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was confirmed by the CIT(A) and Tribunal.

3. Analysis: Justification for expenses and penalty cancellation.
- The assessee argued that the expenses were for legitimate business purposes, including exploring new fields and meeting prospective customers. The Tribunal found that the disallowance of expenses was made on an adhoc basis without substantial evidence. The Tribunal held that no penalty could be levied for mere disallowance of expenses without evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

4. Analysis: Legal precedent and penalty cancellation.
- The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that penalty cannot be imposed solely on the disallowance of expenses without evidence of concealment. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to cancel the penalty imposed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.

5. Conclusion:
- The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, canceling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal's ruling was in line with legal precedents, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence before imposing penalties for tax evasion.