2022 (9) TMI 180 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of loss on sale of assets - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that the expenses incurred by the assessee on the rented premises were written off as loss on surrender of the rented property on discontinuance of running business. It is also not in dispute that all the entries were duly recorded in the books of account of the assessee. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT wherein held rejection of claim would not result in penalty consequences to the appellant, squarely apply on the facts of the case in hand - The penalty is therefore not sustainable and is deleted - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge of penalty deletion under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of a penalty of Rs. 86 lakhs imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue contended that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty. The assessee did not appear despite repeated notices, leading to an ex parte hearing. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claimed loss on sale of assets amounting to Rs. 2,77,19,813/-, leading to the initiation of penal proceedings. The assessee's explanation that the loss was incurred due to discontinuation of a joint venture and surrendering rented premises was not accepted by the Assessing Officer, who levied the penalty. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty after considering the facts and submissions, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products and Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt Ltd.

The Revenue, represented by the ld. DR, supported the Assessing Officer's decision and cited legal precedents. However, the Tribunal noted that the expenses were duly recorded in the assessee's books of account and applied the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products. The Tribunal highlighted that inaccurate particulars must be shown to exist before imposing a penalty under section 271(1)(c), emphasizing that incorrect claims in law do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal found the case of the assessee distinguishable from the decisions relied upon by the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the deletion of the penalty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of accurate particulars and the necessity to demonstrate their inaccuracy before levying penalties. The decision was based on legal principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, ensuring a fair application of tax laws in the case at hand.