2019 (7) TMI 380 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1) (c) - disallowances of claim of exemption u/s.10(13A) and disallowance of bank charges and repairs - penalty was levied for filing inaccurate particulars of income - HELD THAT - But the fact remain that perusal of the assessment order would suggest that assessee had not filed any details whatsoever in support of claim of HRA. As regards to other addition order, it is clearly stated that assessee himself had agreed for the addition and therefore it cannot be said that the appellant had filed inaccurate particulars of income resulting an addition to the returned income. Therefore the very basis of levy of penalty has no legs to stand. Further, it is settled law that mere disallowance of claim does not entitle levy of penalty as held in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd, 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT . Furthermore the employer had not disputed the claim for exemption of HRA. Therefore in the light of the above findings, it is not a fit case for levy of penalty. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the penalty made u/s.271(1) (c) - Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while the appeal against the order under Section 143(3) is pending.
2. Disallowance of Housing Rent Allowance and penalty imposition under Section 271(1)(c).
3. Compliance with interim orders and deposit of sum during pending appeal.
4. Conditions for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) not met.
5. Interpretation of inaccurate particulars of income.
6. Denial of opportunity to explain claim for exemption of Housing Rent Allowance under Section 10.
7. Delay in filing appeal due to medical reasons and condonation request.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the Commissioner's order on the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) while the appeal against the order under Section 143(3) was pending. The appellant argued that the penalty should not have been confirmed as the addition of Housing Rent Allowance was under challenge before the CIT(A) and had not been confirmed. The appellant also highlighted compliance with interim orders by depositing a sum during the pending appeal.

2. The appellant's case involved disallowance of Housing Rent Allowance and imposition of a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Assessing Officer disallowed the HRA claim due to lack of evidence and also disallowed other claims. The penalty was imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, leading to the appeal before the tribunal. The tribunal found that the disallowance alone does not constitute inaccurate particulars and that the penalty was unjustified.

3. The appellant's compliance with interim orders and deposit during the pending appeal was a crucial point of contention. The appellant argued that the penalty should not have been confirmed while the appeal regarding the addition of Housing Rent Allowance was pending. The tribunal considered this argument in conjunction with other grounds raised by the appellant.

4. The tribunal analyzed the conditions for imposing a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and found that the requirements were not met in the present case. The tribunal held that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the appellant, leading to the decision to delete the penalty.

5. The interpretation of inaccurate particulars of income was a significant aspect of the case. The tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd, emphasizing that mere disallowance of a claim does not warrant the imposition of a penalty. The tribunal applied this legal principle to the appellant's case.

6. The appellant raised concerns about being denied an opportunity to explain the claim for exemption of Housing Rent Allowance under Section 10. The tribunal considered this argument along with other grounds raised by the appellant in challenging the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c).

7. The delay in filing the appeal due to medical reasons was another issue addressed by the tribunal. The appellant provided medical reasons for the delay, which the tribunal found to be reasonable. The tribunal condoned the delay and proceeded to adjudicate the appeal on its merits, ultimately allowing the appellant's appeal and directing the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c).