2022 (12) TMI 394 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - expenditure which was claimed by the assessee as exceptional item in the profit loss a/c - HELD THAT - The penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is not correct as further reason that the assessee has disclosed all the facts in the tax return filed by the assessee and thus all the facts were available before AO and nothing was concealed. Even if, the assessee has made a claim which is not correct or not as per provisions of the Act or which the AO considered to be not correct even then the penalty cannot be levied as the full facts were before the AO in the return of income. The facts of the assessee finds that in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT has held that making of claim which is not sustainable in law and claim made in the return cannot be held to be furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, merely because the assessee claimed deduction interest expenditure which is not been accepted by the revenue and penalty cannot be levied u/s 271(1)(c). On the same analogy, we find that the facts of assessee s case are quite similar. We, therefore, respectfully follow the same set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) - Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Appeal against penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income.
2. Exclusion of time period for filing appeal during COVID-19 pandemic.
3. Disallowance of capital expenditure and penalty imposition.

Issue 1: Appeal against penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income

The appeal was filed against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income. The assessee argued that the penalty was not applicable as there was no concealment of facts during the assessment proceedings. The appellate tribunal noted that the penalty was levied for claiming capital expenditure as exceptional items, which the AO considered to be inaccurate particulars of income. The tribunal observed that the assessee had disclosed all relevant details in the tax return, and even if the claim was incorrect, the penalty could not be justified as all facts were available to the AO. Citing the decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd., the tribunal held that making unsustainable claims does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal against the penalty.

Issue 2: Exclusion of time period for filing appeal during COVID-19 pandemic

The registry pointed out that the appeal was time-barred, but the tribunal considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the exclusion of the filing period during the COVID-19 pandemic. Relying on this decision, the tribunal treated the appeal as filed within the limitation period, thus allowing the appeal to proceed.

Issue 3: Disallowance of capital expenditure and penalty imposition

The AO disallowed a capital expenditure claimed by the assessee as exceptional items, leading to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty, stating that the appellant failed to prove the claim of capital expenses. The ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that all details were submitted to the AO, and no concealment occurred. The tribunal found that the penalty was unjustified as the facts were disclosed in the tax return, even if the claim was incorrect. Relying on the decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd., the tribunal set aside the penalty imposed by the ld. CIT(A) and allowed the appeal of the assessee.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal allowed the appeal against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income, citing that all relevant details were disclosed in the tax return. The tribunal also addressed the exclusion of the time period for filing the appeal during the COVID-19 pandemic and set aside the penalty imposed for the disallowance of capital expenditure.