2013 (10) TMI 159 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act Held that - merely because assessee s claim has been disallowed, it cannot be said that the assessee is also guilty of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income - Nothing is brought on record to indicate that there is any concealment on the part of the assessee. Certain additions have been made rejecting certain claims in the case of the assessee, however, that would not lead to imposition of penalty in absence of either concealment or non-furnishment of the particulars of income by the assessee Decided against the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 based on commission payment and expenditure towards reimbursement of marketing expenses to the holding company.

Analysis:

1. Commission Payment Disallowed:
The main issue raised in this Tax Appeal pertains to the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, concerning the commission payment disallowed. The CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal both deleted the penalty, emphasizing that there was no concealment or furnishment of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the deletion by highlighting that the assessee provided necessary information and explanations to substantiate the claims, and the Assessing Officer did not find the explanations false. The Tribunal stressed that the mere disallowance of the claim does not automatically imply concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was deemed not leviable in this case.

2. Expenditure on Marketing Expenses:
Another significant issue in this case was the deletion of penalty related to the expenditure towards reimbursement of marketing expenses to the holding company. The CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal both concluded that the penalty was not justified as there was no concealment or non-furnishment of income particulars by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that certain additions were made by rejecting some claims of the assessee, but this alone did not warrant the imposition of a penalty in the absence of concealment or non-furnishment of particulars. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings, stating that the mere disallowance of claims does not automatically lead to the imposition of a penalty.

3. Overall Decision:
After considering the arguments presented by both sides and reviewing the orders of all relevant authorities, the High Court found no grounds to entertain the Tax Appeal. It was observed that there was no indication of concealment on the part of the assessee. The Court highlighted that while certain additions were made by rejecting some claims, the absence of concealment or non-furnishment of income particulars by the assessee precluded the imposition of a penalty. The Court also referenced a previous case with a similar issue that was not entertained, further supporting the dismissal of the present Tax Appeal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that it did not give rise to any substantial question of law.