2015 (12) TMI 138 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - addition made on account of disallowance of commission payment on contract receipt from Government / PSU, addition relating to expenditure on issuance of convertible debenture and expenditure on project which did not materialize - Held that - Additions on the basis of which penalty has been imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the issues can be considered to be debatable, hence, in the particular circumstances of the case, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be imposed. Accordingly, allowing assessee s ground, we delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for assessment year 1990-91 based on additions made by Assessing Officer - Disallowance of commission payment, expenditure on issuance of convertible debenture, and expenditure on project not materialized.

Analysis:

Commission Payment Disallowance:
The Assessing Officer disallowed commission payment, alleging inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal's contrary views in different assessment years and the deletion of penalties in similar cases indicate a debatable issue. The High Court's admission of the question of law supports the assessee's claim, as confirmed in previous cases. The Tribunal found no justification for penalty imposition due to the contentious nature of the issue and deleted the penalty.

Expenditure on Convertible Debenture:
The disallowance of expenditure as capital was contested by the assessee, citing debatable legal issues. Various High Court decisions supported the revenue nature of such expenses, making the issue highly contentious. The Supreme Court's ruling emphasized that a claim's disallowance does not automatically imply inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal concluded that the debatable nature of the issue precluded penalty imposition and deleted the penalty.

Expenditure on Project Not Materialized:
The disallowance of this expenditure alone did not signify inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal's view was that the penalty was not justified as the High Court admitted the legal issue for adjudication. The Tribunal referred to previous cases where penalties were deleted due to debatable additions, emphasizing that the High Court's admission of legal questions indicated a lack of clarity, leading to the penalty's deletion.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were debatable and subject to legal scrutiny, as evidenced by the High Court's admission of the legal issues. Therefore, the Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1990-91.