9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 68 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) Legal expenses disallowed Expenses personal in nature or not Held that - The deduction claimed by the assessee on account of legal expenses was disallowed by the AO in both the years by treating the said expenses as of personal nature assessee contended that similar legal expenses incurred has been capitalized in the subsequent years after having come to know about the disallowance made in the years which again goes to show the bonafide of the assessee - all the material particulars relevant to the claim made by the assessee were fully and truly furnished by the assessee - the legal expenses claimed by the assessee were actually incurred by him Relying upon COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT - where there is no finding that the particulars furnished by the assessee in its return are in-accurate or erroneous or false, there is no question of imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the act merely because the claim of the assessee for deduction is disallowed in the quantum proceeding thus, it is not a fit case to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and the CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the penalties imposed by the AO for both the years Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues:
Penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 due to disallowance of legal expenses claimed by the assessee. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Legal Expenses: The assessee, a film actor, claimed legal expenses for defending himself in criminal proceedings in assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed these expenses as personal and not business expenditure. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (CIT(A)) initially allowed the deduction, citing preservation and protection of the assessee's profession. However, the Tribunal reversed this decision, confirming the disallowance. The Tribunal held that the legal expenses for criminal proceedings were personal and not related to professional activities. 2. Imposition of Penalty: Following the disallowance of legal expenses, the A.O. imposed penalties under section 271(1)(c) for both years, alleging concealment of income particulars by the assessee. The assessee argued that the claim was genuine, supported by the CIT(A's initial decision and two possible legal views. The A.O. and CIT(A) upheld the penalties, stating the claim was not permissible as per law. The assessee contended that there was no concealment as all relevant details were provided, and the claim was not found to be bogus. 3. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal found the A.O.'s disallowance order lacking detailed reasoning and noted the bonafide nature of the assessee's claim. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Reliance Petroproducts Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized that penalties under section 271(1)(c) require inaccurate particulars of income, which were absent in this case. The Tribunal concluded that the penalties were unjustified, canceling them for both assessment years. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, emphasizing the absence of inaccurate particulars and the bonafide nature of the legal expense claim. The penalties imposed by the A.O. and confirmed by the CIT(A) were canceled, following the principles outlined in the Reliance Petroproducts Ltd. case.
|
