2022 (3) TMI 773 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of penalty paid, disallowance of payment of sales tax and the disallowance pertaining to miscellaneous balance written of - whether penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars - HELD THAT - In Reliance Petro Products Ltd. 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT emphasized that, mere making of a claim of deduction which was not allowable by itself would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In fact, every legal disallowance under the provisions of the Act could not lead to the conclusion that, there was furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on the part of the assessee. In present case it is seen from the order of the AO and CIT(A) that, there is no specific finding in so far as concealment of income and furnishing of incorrect particulars by the assessee in the true meaning of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. On the other hand, in our opinion, debiting an amount of ₹ 10,01,990/- on account of Sundry balance written off in profit and loss account, which was claimed to be in the nature of discount allowed to the customer of the assessee, since the said amount was not recovered and pending for loss and which ultimately disallowed by the AO, cannot attract concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income . The ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro products Ltd (supra) is squarely applicable in favor of the Assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars
Validity of penalty notice specification
Confirmation of penalty on miscellaneous balances written off

Analysis:
The appeal concerns the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The grounds of appeal challenge the legality of the penalty and its specification. Despite multiple notices, the assessee did not appear for the hearing, leading to a decision based on available records and the Senior Departmental Representative's (Sr.DR) arguments.

The case involves an assessee engaged in the manufacturing of tobacco products, declaring a loss in the income tax return. The AO made additions to the declared loss, including disallowances for penalty paid, sales tax, and sundry balances written off. Subsequently, a penalty under section 271(1)(c) was imposed for allegedly furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

The CIT(A) partially deleted the penalty related to penalty paid and sales tax but upheld the penalty on the written-off balances. The appeal challenges this decision. The AO's penalty order was based on three counts, including the miscellaneous balance written off. The CIT(A) relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. to sustain the penalty on the written-off amount.

The assessee contended that the written-off balance was akin to a discount provided to customers, aiming to maintain customer satisfaction. However, the AO did not accept this explanation, leading to the penalty imposition.

The Supreme Court precedent emphasized that inaccuracies in the return must be proven for penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c). In this case, the debiting of the written-off balance in the profit and loss account did not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal found the Supreme Court's ruling applicable and allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalties imposed by the AO and CIT(A).

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, highlighting the absence of concealment or inaccurate particulars in the written-off balance scenario. The decision was based on the principles outlined in the Supreme Court's judgment, leading to the allowance of the appeal and the reversal of the penalty orders.