2019 (6) TMI 1049 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - disallowance of expenses incurred for appellant's own education at Harward business School - HELD THAT - The assessing officer while making disallowance concluded that the expenses claimed by the assessee are personal in nature and cannot be linked to the income earned. There is no finding of the assessing officer that the particulars of expenses claimed by the assessee are inaccurate. As relying on RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT mere disallowance of the expenses claimed by the assessee would not lead to levy of the penalty. In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) confirmed by CIT(A) for disallowance of education expenses incurred at Harward Business School.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for disallowance of expenses incurred for the appellant's education at Harward Business School. The appellant argued that there were no inaccurate particulars of income furnished, thus the penalty was unjustified and should be deleted.

2. The Assessing Officer disallowed education expenses claimed by the appellant, stating there was no nexus with the income against which the expenditure was claimed. The penalty was initiated under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to a lesser amount, but the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, stating the expenditure remained unexplained and attracted Explanation (1) to section 271(c).

3. The appellant argued that the mere disallowance of expenses should not automatically lead to a penalty, citing the decision in Reliance Petrochemicals products. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts clarified that inaccurate particulars must be furnished for the penalty to apply. The court emphasized that incorrect claims in law do not equate to inaccurate particulars, and the penalty provision cannot be invoked unless strictly covered by the law.

4. After considering submissions and legal precedents, the tribunal concluded that the disallowance of expenses did not warrant a penalty under section 271(1)(c) as there were no inaccurate particulars furnished. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant were allowed, and the appeal was consequently allowed.

5. In summary, the tribunal found that the disallowance of expenses alone did not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, as required for the penalty under section 271(1)(c). The decision was based on legal interpretations and precedents, ultimately leading to the allowance of the appellant's appeal against the penalty imposed.