2021 (1) TMI 884 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Addition towards interest paid on TDS and sales tax as well as addition relating to rental income treated as income from other sources - HELD THAT - It is an undisputed fact that the assessee company furnished rent agreement during the assessment proceedings and TDS was deducted by the tenant u/s 194I - The assessee also disclosed the fact that the land belong to third party and the agreement with Dr. Sarita Kalra and after construction, the assessee company can give the constructed hospital to third party. The assessee company also disclosed the investment in construction in hospital as non current investment in balance-sheet. Thus, the assessee fully and truly disclosed the return of income and, therefore, the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the Assessing Officer is not valid. The reliance of decision in case of CIT Vs. Amit Jain 2013 (1) TMI 340 - DELHI HIGH COURT is very apt in the present case. Therefore, the CIT(A) was not right in dismissing the contentions of the assessee and confirming the partial penalty. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Issues:
1. Penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) without specifying the violation in the notice.
2. Applicability of section 271(1)(c) in the case of alleged concealment of income.
3. Addition of rental income under a different head for assessment and penalty purposes.
4. Consideration of evidence and material in penalty proceedings.
5. Validity of penalty initiation without specific charges.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) without specifying the violation in the notice. The appellant contended that the notice was illegal as the assessing officer did not mention the violation under which the notice was issued. The appellant argued that the penalty imposition was unjust and without jurisdiction due to this procedural flaw.

2. The appellant disputed the applicability of section 271(1)(c) based on the circumstances of the case. It was argued that there was no concealment or inaccurate particulars of income. The appellant claimed that the additions were made on presumptions and a mere change of head of income, which did not warrant penalty under the said section. The assessing officer's failure to record satisfaction regarding income concealment was highlighted.

3. The issue of treating rental income as income from other sources for assessment and penalty purposes was contested. The appellant had disclosed all relevant facts, including the rent agreement and TDS deductions, during assessment proceedings. The appellant's argument that the income should be assessed under the head of Income from House Property, not Income from Other Sources, was supported by legal precedents and the disclosure of all material facts.

4. The consideration of evidence and material in penalty proceedings was crucial. The appellant claimed that the explanation, evidence, and material provided were not properly considered and judicially interpreted. It was argued that the penalty imposed was not justified based on the available record and the rejection of the appellant's explanation without supporting material from the assessing officer.

5. The initiation of penalty proceedings without specific charges was challenged. The appellant argued that the penalty proceedings were wrongly initiated without clear charges, rendering them liable to be set aside. The lack of specific charges and the arbitrary nature of the penalty imposition were key points in contesting the validity of the penalty proceedings.

In the final judgment, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal against the penalty order. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant had fully and truly disclosed all relevant facts and income particulars, rendering the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income invalid. Legal precedents and the disclosure of material facts supported the appellant's position. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposition was unjustified, and the appeal was allowed.

← Previous Next →