2023 (3) TMI 514 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - claiming deduction under a wrong head by the assessee - HELD THAT - As from the quantum of order passed by the NFAC against the assessment order passed u/s. 144 of the Act we note that the addition stands substantially reduced and the penalty cannot be levied as observed by the NFAC. Revenue has not been able to find out or bring on record any documents / evidences to establish the necessary requirement for the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) which is either furnishing of inaccurate particulars and / concealment of income. Assessee had relied on the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax-I Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman Co. Ltd. 2013 (3) TMI 373 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT in which the same ratio has been laid down. Respectfully following the above we do not find any merit in the grounds raised by the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre for A.Y. 2010-11.
2. Deletion of penalty by CIT(A) based on reduction in assessed income.
3. Consideration of wrong claim of exemption u/s.10(23C) by the assessee.
4. Failure to reduce penalty proportionately as per CIT(A) order.
5. Correlation between assessment and penalty orders.
6. Justification for deletion of penalty by CIT(A).
7. Lack of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars for penalty levy.
8. Application of legal precedent in penalty imposition.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order by National Faceless Appeal Centre for the assessment year 2010-11. The grounds of appeal included opposition to CIT(A)'s order, deletion of penalty, and failure to consider the wrong claim of exemption by the assessee. The revenue sought restoration of the Assessing Officer's order.

2. The case involved a trust engaged in vocational training activities, primarily in computer and technical training. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty based on the reduction in assessed income, following a remand report and submissions by the appellant.

3. The assessee wrongly claimed exemption u/s.10(23C), which was admitted before CIT(A). Despite the denial of exemption, the educational institution's surplus was to be taxed. The AO was directed to determine the net taxable income based on audited financial statements and allowable expenses.

4. The reduction in assessed income led to the deletion of the penalty by CIT(A). The appellant argued that with the quantum additions being deleted, the penalty would not survive. The revenue, however, relied on the lower authorities' orders.

5. The penalty was not imposed for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars but for a wrong deduction claim. The NFAC's order substantially reduced the addition, rendering the penalty unsustainable. The revenue failed to provide evidence for penalty imposition, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

6. The decision was based on the absence of necessary requirements for penalty levy, as established by legal precedent. The appeal filed by the revenue was ultimately dismissed, with the order pronounced in open court on 28th February 2023.