9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 1014 - AT - Income TaxPenalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) - addition of interest income assessed under the Income from other source by denying exemption u/s. 80IB(10) - HELD THAT - It is well settled in view in CIT Vs. S.V. Angidi Chettiar 1962 (1) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT and D.M. Manasvi 1972 (9) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT that power to impose penalty under section 271 of the Act depends upon the satisfaction of the AO in the course of the proceedings under the Act. It cannot be exercised if he is not satisfied and has not recorded his satisfaction about the existence of the conditions specified in clauses (a), (b) and (c) before the proceedings are concluded. Same position was reiterated by the Full Bench of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd. and others 2008 (11) TMI 54 - HIGH COURT DELHI On mere perusal of the assessment order, it would be evident that the AO had recorded the satisfaction to initiate the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for alleged offence of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, only in respect of addition of interest income by denying exemption u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. The AO had not recorded satisfaction in respect of additional income offered during the course of assessment proceedings, which was allowed as deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. Further, we find that the addition was made on the basis of information furnished by the appellant itself. There is no finding by AO, as to which particulars filed by the appellant are found to be inaccurate. Therefore, in no case, the appellant can be held to be guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the AO was not justified in levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the addition made on account of additional income offered during the course of assessment proceedings. As regards the addition of interest income, it is crystal clear that it is a mere disallowance of claim for deduction u/s. 80IB(10), which is unsustainable under law, it does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as held in the case of C IT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT - There is no finding by the AO as to which particulars filed by the appellant are found to be inaccurate. In the circumstances, it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, accordingly direct the AO to delete the penalty - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues involved: Appeal against levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2016-17.
Summary: The appellant, a partnership firm in the business of Builders, filed a return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 declaring Nil income. The AO completed the assessment, allowing deductions but initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) for additional income recognized during assessment proceedings. The AO levied a penalty of Rs. 39,92,450/-, alleging inaccurate particulars of income. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty without requiring specific satisfaction by the AO for each item of addition. The appellant appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the power to impose penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) requires the AO's satisfaction during the proceedings. The AO must record satisfaction about the specified conditions before concluding the proceedings. The assessment order showed satisfaction only for interest income addition, not for the additional income offered by the appellant. The AO did not specify which particulars were inaccurate, leading to the conclusion that no inaccurate particulars were furnished. The disallowance of the claim for deduction did not amount to inaccurate particulars of income, as per Supreme Court precedent. The Tribunal held that the penalty was unjustified for the additional income offered during assessment proceedings and the disallowed interest income claim. It directed the AO to delete the penalty of Rs. 39,92,450/-. The appeal by the assessee was allowed. Separate Judgment: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
