2019 (3) TMI 805 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - change of head of income or loss in the assessment order - AO treated the rental income as Income from House Property in place of Income from business or profession shown by the assessee - AO allowed the business expenses but disallowed depreciation. - proof of concealment of income - HELD THAT - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not attracted on mere change of head of income or loss in the assessment order which does not result in any concealment of income, hence, Ld. CIT(A), has rightly deleted the penalty in dispute which does not need any interference on our part, therefore, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the grounds raised by the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the impugned Order dated 23.12.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A)-23, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2011-12.
2. Deletion of penalty of ?52,32,068/- imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The assessee filed the return of income declaring NIL income, which was later scrutinized. The AO treated rental income as 'Income from House Property' instead of 'Income from business or profession' declared by the assessee, resulting in an addition to the assessed income. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) were initiated, and a penalty of ?52,32,068/- was imposed for concealment of income. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty, stating that a mere change in the head of income in assessment does not amount to concealment of income. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, citing various case laws supporting that penalty is not attracted in cases where there is no inaccurate information furnished by the assessee. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the deletion of the penalty.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) based the deletion of the penalty on the grounds that the change in the head of income from business to house property did not constitute concealment of income. The appellant argued that all relevant facts were available on record, and the change in assessment was made based on the AO's computation. Citing case laws like CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd., the appellant contended that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not warranted when there is no inaccurate information provided in the return. The Tribunal concurred with the Ld. CIT(A)'s findings, emphasizing that a mere change in the head of income does not imply concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty was canceled, and the Tribunal upheld the decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved and the reasoning behind the decision to delete the penalty imposed by the AO.