2010 (6) TMI 21 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - it was explained by the assessee that the investments were written off in the books of account and were claimed as deduction on account of loss occurred to the assessee in the computation of total income. It was urged that as the entire facts were disclosed in the return it could not be treated as concealment of income. The stand put forth by the assessee was rejected on the ground that the assessee had made certain claims by way of business expenditure in the return but was unable to substantiate the same. Accordingly the assessing officer imposed the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - The amount of investment written off was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and the same was affirmed up to the level of the tribunal. tribunal deleted the penalty Held that It is a case where a claim put forth by the assessee as regards the loss was not accepted but that would not per se tantamount to furnishing any kind of inaccurate particulars no concealment of income no penalty

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for investments written off.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Issue of Penalty Assessment:
- The appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act challenged the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the confirmation of penalty for investments written off.
- The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of investment written off and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
- The Assessing Officer imposed the penalty on the grounds that the assessee failed to substantiate certain claims made in the return, leading to the disallowance of the investment written off.

2. Assessee's Contentions:
- The assessee argued that the investments were written off in the books of account and claimed as a deduction due to losses incurred, which were disclosed in the return.
- The assessee contended that the imposition of the penalty was unjustified as all details were available in the return, and no inaccurate particulars were furnished.

3. Appellate Proceedings:
- The CIT(Appeals) affirmed the Assessing Officer's order, stating that the assessee knowingly furnished inaccurate particulars of income, shifting the burden of proof to the assessee.
- The tribunal, in the appeal by the assessee, held that the disallowance of the investment written off did not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, citing precedents and emphasizing the disclosure of all income particulars.

4. Judicial Analysis:
- The High Court analyzed the tribunal's findings and cited the Orissa High Court's opinion on concealment and inaccurate particulars of income.
- The High Court concluded that the assessee had disclosed all material facts, and the disallowance of the investment claim did not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income.
- The court held that no substantial question of law arose, dismissing the appeal and ruling in favor of the assessee.

5. Judgment Outcome:
- The High Court dismissed the appeal at the admission stage, emphasizing that no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars was found, leading to no merit in the appeal.
- The court awarded no costs in the judgment, affirming the tribunal's decision regarding the penalty assessment for investments written off.

This detailed analysis covers the issues, contentions, appellate proceedings, judicial analysis, and the final outcome of the High Court's judgment regarding the penalty assessment under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for investments written off.