2023 (7) TMI 611 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - correct head of income - as per AO shares were held as stock in trade and the income on the sale of shares is qualified as business income and not income under the head long term capital gain - HELD THAT - We note that the assessee has disclosed income from the sale of shares and claimed exemption u/s 10(38) - Thus, it is transpired that the income was duly disclosed by the assessee. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income. If at all the penalty was to be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) same can be under the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. We note that it is a trite law that every addition or disallowance made during the assessment proceedings cannot be treated either concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and thereby levying the penalty. The phrase furnishing inaccurate particulars of income has not been defined under the provision of the Act. The income disclosed by the assessee has been assumed as business income and not the income under the head capital gain. At the most, such disclosure can be said as inaccurate claim made by the assessee which cannot be equated with the inaccurate particulars of income. See Reliance Petro Products Ltd. 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT Thus the claim made by the assessee not admitted by the AO cannot be termed as concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal against the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the Assessment Year 2014-15.

Summary:
The only issue raised was the confirmation of the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family engaged in share trading, declared a profit on sales of shares and claimed exemption under section 10(38) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer treated the income as business income instead of long-term capital gain, leading to penalty proceedings. The assessee contended that full disclosure was made regarding the exempted income, arguing against the imposition of the penalty.

The Appellate Tribunal noted that the income was duly disclosed by the assessee, indicating no concealment of particulars of income. It was emphasized that the penalty cannot be imposed merely due to a claim not being accepted by the Assessing Officer. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, it was established that an inaccurate claim does not equate to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied, allowing the appeal of the assessee.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was set aside based on the lack of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.